
' ^^^°- 



^1 ^ 



■^-^^ 









.■^ <?*v =, 



,>.^. % ^^^ -'■^A°^o % ,# ^' 






















6 Q^ I 






^'i'^'^^ 



Va 









^ °^ 









Q^ -^ ^ >.~^ A^ 








.'■\ 



V 










.N' 



^o^ 

^ 



.^^ ^ 











if 



It. 















^■- %.# 



^^\^ 



G^ Ol.^'^,^ G° ,'>W/, ■^^ 



iW 






(? V 




.4o 



9?/'o,x-* x^ 



L^^ 



<j> ^ 







. f -^ 






















' "%.o^ j^SiiP''. "^^o^ 



^.^^ 

















.^^ 



G^ ,s^ V'-v '^. 




V^^ 






0^- ^— .^<^ -"•^^o^'';.v'. V'-^\o^^-'..V^*' 








. -^ G- V 



L^^ 



.^^°<^ 




^- ^ 













% 



% <^' 



cru 



.^ ' JrA^^A'^^ ^\^ > *'"x(\^^A:-. ^^. A^ 






"^<^'' 



%> ^^^ 















^ 



<5^^ 




c 







r 



. / 



f / 

^ 



§ 



' >. • 



t 



% 



AS 



EXAMINATION 



or TBB 



. DOCTRINE 

' - OF 

FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

ON THE PRINCIPLES OF 

MORALS; ANALOGY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 



Bt HOSEA BALLOU. 



BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED AT THE TRUMPET OFFICE, 
1834. 






Entered according to Act of Congress in trie year 1334, hj 

Thomas Whittemoke, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District 

of Massachusetts, 






4 BOSTON: > 

? James B. Dow, Printer, > 
f ]29 Washington Street. > 



7Sf 



DEDICATION. 

From numerous considerations, which have made 
a deep and lasting impression on his mind, the au- 
thor of this work is induced, most respectfully and 
affectionately, to inscribe it to the Second Uni- 
VERSALisT Society in Boston, to which it has 
been his happiness, for many years, to minister, 

H, BaIiLoUv 



PREFACE. 



A PART of what is contained in the following work 
has been before published in the Universalist Maga- 
3zine, and Universalist Expositor. But as neither of 
these periodicals ever had a very extensive circulation, 
the author had a desire of bringing his views on the 
subject treated on, more extensively before the public, 
and that in a work by itself; by which means it might 
be more likely to become a subject of general consid- 
eration and investigation. 

The first part of the work, which treats the general 
subject on moral principles, and on principles of anal- 
ogy, was never before published, nor was that, which 
immediately follows, what appeared in the Universalist 
Expositor. 

The whole, as it is now embodied, will make the 
reader pretty well acquainted with the views of the 
author, on the general subject, and the principles on 
which he founds them. 

If the views maintained in the following essay are 
any more in accordance with truth, than are those 
doctrines which oppose them, there is every good rea- 
son for laying them before the public, which can be 
required for so doing. We cannot allow it to be sound 
argument, to say that truth ought not to be advanced 
1=* 



6 PREFACE. 

if it conflict with long established opinions, and tend 
to give offence to pious minds, who have long been 
established in the popular doctrines of the day. If 
we consent to such argument, we thereby pass censure 
on that divine teacher, who warned his disciples to 
beware of the doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees ; 
and not only do we thereby charge him with fault, but 
justify his revilers and persecutors. Thus should we 
take the position occupied by those^ in our Saviour's 
time, who shut up the kingdom of heaven against men ; 
and who would neither enter themselves, nor suffer 
others so to do. 

If the master spirits, who led in the reformation, in 
the sixteenth century, had yielded to the fear of giving 
offence to a church which was imbued with error and 
corruption, the moral darkness which characterized 
that age might have constituted a protracted night, 
and the benign light, which has made such salutary 
advances, might have been excluded from the Chris- 
tian world. 

Whatever may be said to justify Galilei for abjuring 
the Copernican system, when his life was menaced, 
the same could not be urged in extenuation of the im- 
propriety of withholding important truth from society, 
in times which are not disgraced with oiBces of in- 
quisition. 

Should the reader object to the foregoing remarks, 
as giving any countenance to the publishing of doc- 
.trine so erroneous as he may believe is maintained in 



PREFACE. 7 

the following pages, he is reminded that such an ob- 
jection constitutes himself as odious an inquisition as 
ever was nourished in the bosom of popery. The 
times in which we live, and the happy government, 
which guarantees and defends the right of every indi- 
vidual in community, not only justify the honest con- 
fession of our religious sentiments, but call on us to 
discharge such a duty. In addition to this call, a par- 
amount one is recognized from truth itself To this 
call the writer of the following essay has been con- 
scientiously devoted for more than forty years ; and he 
has endeavored faithfully to discharge the duties which 
it embraced, notwithstanding the many painful con- 
flicts through which they have carried him. Not that 
he would boast of having advanced nothing but truth ; 
for experience has often enforced on his mind the 
truth of the maxim, that ' to err is human.' But such 
experience has been useful ; as by exposing his mis- 
takes to the investigation of stronger and more en- 
lightened minds, they have been corrected. One con- 
solation he has constantly enjoyed, that of reflecting 
that his mistakes were errors of the head, never of the 
heart. It has always remained his fixed resolution, to 
keep a mind open to conviction ; always active in 
investigating religious truth ; constantly ready to pro- 
fess and hold forth any opinion, however unpopular, 
and however opposed by divines, by the schools, or by 
his dearest friends, when convinced of its truth. This 
course has led him to give up many religious tenets, 



b PREFACE. 

which were taught him in his youth, and not a few 
which were embraced by the denomination to which 
he has from his youth belonged. Travelling this 
course, he early renounced the doctrine of endless 
punishment; the doctrine of the trinity; that of native 
depravity ; that of the imputation of sin and of righ- 
teousness ; that of the vicarious' sufferings of Christ ; 
and nearly eighteen years ago, the doctrine of punish- 
ment in the future state. It has been his lot to meet 
with much opposition on most of these points, from 
various denominations, and not the least strenuous 
from those of the denomination with which he has 
been happy to hold connexion. For the painful tra- 
vail endured from all this opposition, he has been 
abundantly compensated by seeing the rapid advance 
of the doctrines which he has embraced, and endeav- 
ored to advocate. 

The object of the writer of the following pages is 
to place his views, respecting the doctrine of a future 
state of retribution, before the public, and to preserve 
his arguments on that subject, that when the time 
shall come, as he believes it will, when people in gen- 
eral will number the tenet of future punishment among 
those corruptions of Christianity, which will then be 
abandoned, it may be known that the writer disbe- 
lieved it in his day ; and also that the arguments with 
which he opposed it may then be known. 

Universalists now take a pleasure in looking back 
and tracings from Origen down to our time, the progress 



PREFACE. 9 

of the doctrine which embraces the salvation of all 
men ; and so they will doubtless continue to do in fu- 
ture ages. 

Some may query whether a proper regard to the 
opinions and feelings of honesty, faithful and affection- 
ate brethren, who believe in the doctrine of future 
retribution, but yet earnestly contend for final restora- 
tion, would not incline the writer to be silent on the 
subject, and not to come out with this publication. 
To this inquiry it is replied, that such brethren, with 
their many commendable qualities, are warmly cher- 
ished in the affections of the writer's heart, nor are 
they the less regarded because they do not adopt his 
opinions. And he feels confident that such brethren 
will entertain no suspicions of his want of respect for 
them. They will not fail to consider that the views of 
the writer, on the subject of retribution, are not so 
wide from their's, as their's are from tho views of those 
authors whom they quote as authority in support of 
future retribution. They would doubtless sooner em- 
brace the opinion of no future sin and misery, than 
defend the doctrine maintained by that good man, ex- 
emplary christian, and faithful minister, Elhanan Win- 
chester, which supposed that the wicked in the world 
to come, would suffer for ages and ages, inconceivable 
torment in literal fire and brimstone. Such torment 
is now denied by our doctors, who maintain endless 
punishment, and rejected also by those who believe in 
a state hexeafter of discipline which shall end in an 



10 PREFACE. 

entire reformation. Such brethren will also cordially 
respond to the assurance that the writer of the follow-* 
ing work will never withhold a sincere fellowship from 
a faithful brother, because he disagrees with him on 
the doctrine of divine retribution. 

It is very possible that some, who have a strong de- 
sire that nothing should be done, which should tend, 
in the least, to endanger the harmony and cordial fel- 
lowship of Universalists, may think that prudence 
would, at least, plead for a delay, and suggest the pro- 
priety of deferring this publication to some future time, 
when it might give less offence. Such may be assured 
that their good wishes for the harmony and fellowship 
of our order, are duly respected ; but they cannot be 
ignorant of the fact that the doctrine of a future state 
of punishment has been disbelieved, by ministering 
brethren of our order, for many years, and that much 
has been published with a view to disprove that doc- 
trine ; and, moreover, that now that doctrine is gener- 
ally disbelieved by Universalists of our connexion j 
and yet much harmony prevails, and our fellowship 
remains, and is warmly cherished between brethren 
whose opinions disagree on the subject of this doc- 
trine. The wriler would further remark, that both age 
and infirmity admonish him that what he feels it his 
duty to do, he ought not to delay ; and he cannot be- 
lieve that any of his brethren can feel, in the least, 
wounded because their aged brother should finish his 
labors in accordance with the dictates of his own un^ 



PREFACE; 



11 



derstanding. It is a happy circumstance, that in the 
denomination of Universalists, no one feels bound to 
defend and support the particular opinions of another, 
any further than he is himself convinced of their truth 
and importance. Our platform of faith is general, and 
allows individuals an extensive latitude to think freely, 
investigate minutely, and to adopt what particular 
views best comport with the honest convictions of the 
mind,an d fearlessly to avow and defend the same. 

As the writer of the following pages has, from the 
commencement of his studies and ministry, asserted, 
enjoyed, and improved his right to think freely, and 
to embrace or reject the opinions of others, as the 
force of evidence appeared to direct, so he wishes to 
continue to do, the little remainder of his days of la- 
bor. And he would assure his brethren, that he has 
always felt it his duty to accord the same right to oth- 
ers ; and this he hopes to continue to do in future. 

Feeling an unabated desire for the advancement of 
divine truth, and the pure religion of the Saviour, he 
cannot willingly withhold from contributing, what he 
humbly hopes, may have a tendency to this desired 
end. The Author. 



DOCTRINE 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 



The moral tendency of doctrine, having now ex- 
tensively engaged the attention of theorists, is fast ad- 
vancing its interest in the minds of people generally ; 
and divines of different denominations are, therefore, 
desirous of recommending their respective tenets to 
the consideration and acceptance of the public, by 
inducing a belief that they are justly entitled to a pref- 
erence above all others, on account of their evident 
tendency to moral virtue. 

This state of things ought not to be considered as 
undesirable, for it will eventually lead to most salutary 
consequences. In fact, it shows, most evidently, that 
moral virtue is held in such high estimation, that it is 
worthy of being made the umpire, to whose decision 
contending theologians must submit their respective 
theories. This must be a subject of congratulation to 
every lover of moral virtue ; for here he sees all, who 
are engaged in disputes about their varying and con- 
flicting creeds, paying a voluntary homage to what he 
so warmly loves, and to which his heart is sincerely 
devoted. It is true that the good, of which we here 
speak, must be found mixed with some evil, as are all 
2 



14 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

Other favorable things and circumstances, enjoyed in 
this world. There will be found in the many pleas 
which are, and will he offered by partisans in favor 
of iheir respective, darling tenets, some unkind insinu- 
ations, some uncandid representations, some violent 
thrusts, which will indicate a greater love of party 
than of truth and morals. But after all, the balance 
will be favorable ; truth will be sifted and better under- 
stood ; and though the evil may be bitter, like the bud, 
it will soon give w^ay to fruit which will be desirable. 
It would be expecting too, much of men, so imperfect 
as we know the leaders of the different denominations 
are, to think they will always treat each other as they 
would be willing to be treated, or refer to each other 
with that respect which they love to have shown to 
themselves. Though it is pleasant and agreeable to 
hope for such a state of religion, as will make all its 
votaries love each other as they love themselves ; we 
must not forget that the due exercise of charity for 
man, even in the present state of things, is a virtue 
which is entitled to precedence above all others. Let 
this virtue be as extensively exercised as the calls for 
it occur, and let the controversy go on till the legiti- 
mate rehition between the doctrine of divine truth and 
those sound and wholesome morals, which are its 
natural fruits, shall be clearly understood. Truth will 
then shine in unborrowed lustre, and virtue attract by 
its native beauty and moral worth* 

The two theories of doctrine, which at present 
seem most to call the attention of the public to a 
candid investigation of their respective merits, on 
those grounds which we have before noticed, are dis- 
tinguished, the one by depending on a belief in a fu- 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 15 

tare state of rewards and punishment, to guard us 
against the practice of vice, and to induce us to obey 
the precepts of religion and morality ; the other, by 
teaching that all the reward we ought to expect, for a 
faithful discharge of our duty to God and our fellow- 
creatures, is found in the enjoyments which are neces- 
sarily connected with religion and duty, in the present 
state, where our obedience is practised ; and that all 
the retributions for wrong-doing, in the present world, 
are the infelicities which cannot be separated from 
the vices, which bring them upon us. Tiie former di- 
rects us to look beyond the grave for the rewards of 
our virtues, and for the punishments of our vices; the 
latter teaches us to expect both these in the present 
world. The statement here made of the two theories, 
and of their respective marks of distinction, is thought 
to be, sufficiently definite, as the subject is pretty well 
understood by people in general. 

Our object in the present disquisition is to try, in a 
candid manner, the claims of these two theories, not 
only in reference to their moral influence, but also 
with regard to some other arguments, which are urged 
by their respective supporters, in their defence. 

It has long been believed and taught by the learned 
doctors of the Christian church, that man being so 
constituted as to be persuaded by the two principles of 
hope and fear, our Creator has seen fit to promise us 
a reward, in the future state, for the faithful perform- 
ance of our duty in this ; and that he has threatened 
us with punishment, in the future state, both for our 
neglect of obedience to his requirements, and for those 
acts in which we violate them. Thus it is contended 
that reason and experience teach the doctrine of fu- 



16 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

ture rewards and punishments, as analogous with our 
moral constitution. The advocates of this view of the 
general question are confident that if the hope of fu- 
ture reward was removed, and the fear of future pun- 
ishment done away, religion and virtue would no lon- 
ger attract man's attention, nor aught remain to re- 
strain him from indulging himself in all the vices and 
abominations which are forbidden. 

That those views and arguments should be satis- 
factory to people who are taught them from childhood, 
need not excite our wonder ; nor need we, for a mo- 
ment, withhold our charity from those teachers, who 
are now engaged in defending them. These teachers 
were, from their infant days, taught those opinions. 
Nor is it at all difficult to account for all the zeal 
which seems to animate those who are making every 
possible exertion to keep those sentiments in credit, 
and to prevent the prevalence of the opposite doctrine. 
On general principles, we are perfectly safe in suppos■^ 
ing those to be honest and sincere, who are thus em- 
ployed, and that they have the good of mankind in 
view. 

But, notwithstanding we feel bound to respect the 
honest and sincere, and to treat their doctrines and 
arguments with candor, it seems, in every view of the 
subject, a reasonable duty to examine carefully, not 
only the premises on which doctrines are predicated, 
but also the legitimacy of inferences which are drawn 
from them. 

As to the fact, that man is influenced and persuad- 
ed by the opposite principles of hope and fear, it 
seems reasonable that it be allowed. It seems very 
evident that we always act with a hope to gain some 
benefit, and thereby to avoid some evil ; but does it 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 17 

necessarily follow that the benefit which we hope to 
gain must be in a future state, and that the evil we 
hope to avoid must be there too t This is directly 
denied by thos-e whose views we are now examining. 
They say, if the fear of future punishment were re- 
moved, and the hope of future reward taken away, 
there would be nothing to induce us to be religious 
and moral, nor any thing to prevent us from running 
into the practice of every vice and abomination. 
Then surely we could act without being incited by 
considerations of a future state. It would be no easier 
for us to commit sin without a motive, than to practise 
virtue without a motive. But where lies the expected 
benefit, which induces the vicious to sin 1 Does it 
present itself to the imagination in a future state ? 
No one will pretend this. Then it must be given up, 
at once, that in order to induce njen to act it is neces- 
sary to place the object to be obtained in a future 
world. The candid reader will now see, that the 
doctrine we are examining is unsound ; for it depends 
on the supposition, that as we act from hope and fear, 
the good hoped for, and the evil dreaded, must both 
be in a future state. 

If, in order further to maintain the doctrine of future 
rewards and punishments, its advocate should say, 
that although men may be induced to sin, and may 
become as active in so doing as possible, without the 
expectation of any good in the future state, yet with- 
out such expectation they cannot be persuaded to 
become religious and moral, he is called on to find 
out and assign the reason. 

We have now arrived at a spot where we should do 
well to pause and duly consider. All the professed 
friends of religion and moral virtue will allow that the 
2* 



18 EXAMTXATION OP THE DOCTRINE 

wicked are too active in comaiitting sin, that they run 
too greedily in pursuit of forbidden indulgences; but 
none of them suppose that these wicked thus act in 
expectation of obtaining any good in a future state. 
Where then do the wicked expect to receive the en- 
joyment which they are pursuing? In this present 
state, to be sure. 

Reader, be cautious ! If the wicked are induced 
to commit all manner of iniquity, and to practise every 
forbidden abomination, by no expectation of any en- 
joyment but in this life, can there be any other rea- 
son assigned why they do not forsake the ways of im- 
piety and vice, and become religious and moral, than 
because religion and morality do not promise them so 
much happiness and enjoyment, in the present w^orld, 
as does the course they are now in ? No one will or 
can doubt on this subject. Then let us ask, whether 
the view which the wicked have of religion and mo- 
rality is a right one ? To this question all will an- 
swer in the negative. We are then ready for a gen- 
eral and a safe conclusion. There is no necessity of 
promising a reward in a future state for the practice 
of duty in the present. All that is wanting for this 
purpose is to understand and to be persuaded that 
righteousness brings an ample reward, in the present 
life. 

This conclusion is abundantly justified by the fact, 
that in room of obtaining the good which the wicked 
promise themselves in the paths of vice, they always 
meet with that degree oi trouble and infelicity which 
constitutes a just recompense for their disobedience 
to the commands of God, and the dictates of con- 
science. 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 19 

In our investigation of the force of motive to induce 
the wicked to push forward in wrong-doing, we must 
not neglect to notice the counteracting power which 
is overcome by it (according to common opinion). It 
is a fact, with which all are acquainted, that nearly 
all the vicious have been educated in the belief of a 
future state of rev/ards and punishments ; yet notwith- 
standing the apprehensions which they have enter- 
tained, that by the practice of the vices in which they 
indulged their passions, they were exposing themselves 
to inconceivable miseries hereafter ; the expectation of 
enjoyment in the present state, has carried them on 
in the strong current of sin, which has broken down 
every barrier, and furnished conclusive proof that no 
motive is so sure of inducing to action, as the expec- 
tation of immediate happiness. 

In view of these facts, who will wonder that in 
these times there should be some engaged in laboring 
to convince men that present happiness can be ob- 
tained by being faithful in the discharge of our duty 
to God, to our fellow-creatures, and to ourselves, by 
doing justly, loving mercy, and by walking humbly, 
and by no other means ; and that however flatter- 
ing sin may appear, and however strongly our blind, 
fleshly passions may tempt us from duty, moral death, 
condemnation, and misery will be the immediate and 
sure recompense for unlawful indulgence 7 

We maintain that this view, and all the facts which 
we can find connected with it, are in accordance with 
the laws of the human mind, and will be found to 
agree with universal experience. By these views we 
arrive at the desideratum long sought for, the reason 
why the promises of complete bliss, in the future v/orld, 
and the threatenings of most dire torments, have not 



20 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

accomplished the design for which they were so vehc" 
meritly urged on the people. Yes, we here discover 
the reason why such doctrines have not been able 
to restrain their most zealous believers from the very 
sins, for which they believed these threatenings would 
be executed on those who practised them. Deceive 
ourselves as much as we may, whenever truth appears 
we find ourselves in pursuit of happiness, in the pres- 
ent world ; and if we are vicious, it is in consequence 
of an erroneous expectation of obtaining it by wicked 
means ; and if we are pious and virtuous, it is because 
we love to be so, and find ourselves richly rewarded 
in keeping the divine commands, and in obedience to 
the dictates of conscience. 

We would not be understood, to suppose that the 
divine light, which shows us these invaluable truths, 
has never shined in the understandings of our divines, 
who so much depend on future rewards and punish- 
ments to support religion and virtue; for they fre- 
quently discover this light, and communicate it to the 
public. But they do not appear to enjoy its steady 
rays, nor do they conform their doctrine to its direc- 
tions. If we ask them what constitutes true religion, 
they tell us it is the love of God in the heart. If w^e 
ask them what constitutes genuine morality, they will 
tell us that it is the natural fruit of true religion. Ask 
them whether we can either love God, or practise mo- 
rality, by being induced by the hope of future rewards, 
or the fear of future punishments, and they will answer 
in the negative, with great assurance. But by the 
force of tradition, and by the influence of habit, to- 
gether with some other causes, they will continue to 
advocate the notion that religion and morality would 
quit our world, if the hopes and fears of future re-* 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 21 

wards and punishments were not kept up, and caused 
to act on the mind. 

We have a remarkable instance of the foregoing 
inconsistency in Professor Stuart's Letter to Dr. Chan- 
ning. He says, — ' Religion, all true religion, is a 
voluntary offering on the part of man to his Creator, 
A forced creed is no creed. Belief, from its own na- 
ture and the very co7istitution of the human mind, must 
he free, spontaneous , induced by argument, not com- 
pelled by fear or by threats. All professed belief of 
this latter hind is utterly unworthy of the name. It is 
an object of abhom-ence to God, and of loathing to 
men.^ 

After reading the above quotation, and after duly 
considering the unquestionable truth of every thing 
there stated, who could reasonably expect to find the 
learned professor endeavoring to induce the human 
mind to search for religion, and the true faith of the 
gospel, by urging the terrors of future misery 1 Yet 
we find him, in the same Letter, holding the following 
terrific language: — ^ As an immortal being, I look 
forward to the time when myself and all around me 
are to enter on the *' recompense of reward," a final 
eternal one. If I am serious in my religious views; 
if I am well persuaded, that they are true, and this, 
after repeated, protracted, and patient examination; 
then I must be utterly destitute even of the spirit of 
common humanity, if I do not desire others to partici- 
pate with me in this persuasion. Were it a matter 
pertaining inerely to their temporal interests, most of 
my fellow -beings would pronounce me destitute of hu" 
manity, in case I should not warn those around me to 
escape from it. But O the never dying soul I Th^ 
awful tribunal of * ■ eternal judgment / '' *- The fear^ 



22 EXAMINATION OP THE DOCTRINE 

fulness of falling into the hands of the living God, 
who is a consuming fire ! '' If I believe that there are 
unequivocal declarations in God's word (as I truly do) 
in respect to these tremendous subjects ; if I believe 
that the impenitent are surely exposed to endless mis- 
ery ; that those who reject the Saviour as he is offered 
in the gospel, ^' shall not see life, but that the wrath of 
God tvill abide on them ;" can I, as a man of any pre- 
tensions to benevolence, refrain from telling all this to 
others, from urging it upon them, xind from warning 
them of the danger in which I sincerely believe them 
to be?' . 

It seems impossible to arrange two paragraphs so as 
to exhibit contradiction more plainly than is manifest- 
ed by the two above quoted from the learned professor. 
In the first, he assures us that a religion, or a pro- 
fessed belief induced by fear or by threats, is an • ob- 
ject of abhorrence to God, and of loathing to men.' 
In the last, he presents us with the wrath of God and 
eternal misery, as the fruit of his benevolence. He 
holds up the Saviour, in one hand, and makes an offer 
of him for our acceptance , in the other, he presents 
the wrath of God and eternal misery ; if we receive 
the Saviour we escape this eternal misery ; but if not, 
then this misery surely awaits us. These are the 
terms on which the Saviour is olTered by a divine, who 
tells us that our profession of the Saviour, compelled 
by fear or threats, is an object of abhorrence to God, 
and of loathing to men ! Thus he would endeavor to 
set up and establish the very thing which God abhors, 
and W'hich men loathe ! 

There is no man so entirely ignorant of the laws of 
the human mind, as to suppose that we can be in- 
duced to love our Creator, either by a promised rer 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 23 

ward, or by threatened torment ; and yet these motives 
are constantly urged on the people for this very pur- 
pose ; and the arguments we are examining, in de- 
fence of a future state of rewards and punishments, 
contend that religion and morality depend on them. 

If our Creator is worthy of the love and devotion 
of his rational offspring, a fact which none will deny, 
it must be on account of his real goodness to them ; 
and if his requirements are worthy of our careful ob- 
servance, which none will question, it must be because 
the keeping of them is enjoyment to us. With these 
simple, self-evident propositions in clear view, why 
should we have recourse to hereafter rewards and pun- 
ishments to incite us to love God and to keep his com- 
mandments ? To induce us to love God, nothing is 
necessary but to make us acquainted with his real 
character ; and to persuade us to keep the divine com- 
mands, no argument need be used but to show us 
the interest we have in obedience. 

We should not do entire justice to this subject, 
should we neglect to show, that it is morally impossible, 
by the promise of a hereafter reward, and the threat- 
ening of hereafter punishment, to induce any one to 
love God and to keep his commandments. Should 
we so far deceive ourselves as to suppose we had com- 
plied with these duties, from such motives, we should 
at once see our mistake were we asked the question, 
whether it were our Creator which we felt a love for, 
or that reward which influenced our affections 1 If 
we try the subject by attending to any circumstance 
within the wide range of common life, we shall at 
once see, that we are incapable of loving any object 
we can name, either by the expectation of obtaining a 
recompense therefor, or of escaping the greatest ca- 



24 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

lamity thereby. Keep this truth in mind, and then 
observe that the whole, which God requires of us, is 
to love him with all the heart, and our neighbors as 
ourselves, and that no acceptable service can be ren- 
dered to our Creator, but on this principle of love, — 
and our whole subject is perfectly clear, and free from 
the least obscurity. 

But we must carry this research still farther. For 
it is necesssary for us to understand that the preaching 
of future rewards and punishments, for the purpose of 
inducing people to love God and moral virtue, is not 
only useless, hui pernicious. All such preaching, be it 
ever so well intended, not only amounts to a declara- 
tion, that God and moral virtue are, in themselves, 
unlovely, and unworthy of being loved, but, as far as 
it is believed, serves to alienate the affections from 
these most precious objects. We may illustrate this 
subject by the use of figures furnished in the Scrip- 
tures. There God is represented by a fountain of liv- 
ing waters. Divine truth, by waters, by wine and 
milk, by bread, &/C. Should we be offered an im- 
mense reward for accepting these nourishing aliments, 
and should we be threatened with severe punishments 
if we refused them, — it would be natural for us to sup- 
pose, that the person who should make such proposals, 
and state such conditions, did not believe these things 
to be of any value in themselves; and the greater the 
zeal manifested by him from whom such proposals 
should come, the stronger would be the evidence to 
us of this forbidding fact. We see, then, that this 
kind of preaching is not only useless, but that it is, in 
fact, of a tendency the most pernicious. 

As it is confidently believed that the arguments, to 
which the reader has just been attending, are so clear 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 25 

and self-evident, that no well-informed divine will 
ever attempt to disprove ihem, it seems almost needless 
to attempt to pursue the general subject, to which they 
relate, any farther; but it being a fact that the human 
mind, even when convinced of the truth of important 
doctrinal propositions, may have been so enfeebled by 
the force of tradition, and may still remain so limited 
as to mental vision, as to be quite unable to trace out 
the relation of some of the first inferences which 
those propositions afford, it is thought expedient to go 
on and show such relation, at least in regard to some 
things which are often brought against them. 

No question seems to be resorted to, by the opposers 
of our views, more frequently than the following : — 
If 1 am taught to fear no punishment for sin, in a fu- 
ture state, what am I to fear, that I may be thereby 
deterred from the commission of sin ? It is true, that 
this question is not usually put in the first person sin- 
gular, as here stated ; it is pretty uniformly stated in 
relation to the wicked, who are a class of people to 
which our opposers do not belong. But we think 
whoever asks the question, should ask it in relation to 
himself But this he is loth to do; he is not willing 
to imply that he is so much in love of sin, as to need 
the fear of punishment in another world to deter him 
from committing it. This opinion, that we are so dif- 
ferent from other people, that we need not the same 
inducements to influence our conduct as they do, is 
one of those extraordinary things, which blind bigotry 
alone is able to produce. In every thing, which does 
not come within the compass of our rank superstition, 
we feel perfectly safe, in calculating that other people 
may be influenced to act from the same motives which 
influence ourselves. We safely calculate all our labor, 
3 



26 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

all our traffic with the world, all our national policy 
on this principle. On this principle the most wealthy 
are not afraid to venture their whole estates ; on this, 
no man is afraid to risk all he has, and even his life. 
In the concerns of commerce and wealth, we know 
that people aim at profit therein ; and in relation to 
personal safety, we fear nothing among those who are 
interested in our lives, either by love or profit. 

Having t?ms corrected the error of supposing that 
it is necessary to induce others to avoid sin and to 
practise virtue, by an influence which we do not our- 
selves need, we may go on to answer our question as 
it is stated in the first person. The question is. What 
am I to fear, in order to prevent myself from doing 
wrong ? Answer : That very wrong itself. By wrong, 
we mean sin, or the transgression of the rule of moral 
right. Fear of sin itself is the only fear that can pre- 
vent my committing it. Should that superstition 
which speculates in the imaginary torments of the 
damned, in the invisible world, fill me as full of its 
fear as a live coal is of heat, 'still, if the love of sin is 
in my heart, I am, for all this fear, none the less a 
sinner. Will it be asked whether this fear, though it 
cannot purify the heart, may not prevent the outward 
act of sin ? Answer : No. For this very supersti- 
tion, which is the author of this fear, always presents 
to the mind ways and means whereby the sin may be 
committed, and the punishment avoided. There is 
scarcely an instance known, of the execution of most 
notorious criminals, who suffer death at the hand of 
the public executioner, but the wretch is first fur- 
nished by the clergy, who preach the terrors of here- 
after misery, with a confident hope of escaping the 
wrath and torment which were held up by them to in- 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 27 

duce him to repentance. In this country, as well as 
in Catholic countries ; in our religious communities, 
as well as in communities which are Catholic in their 
creed and customs, the ministers of religion are care- 
ful, by the terrors of damnation, to save from damna- 
tion the most vile of the vile ; even those, who, ac« 
cording to their own creeds, most justly deserve it ! 
In fact, it is a truth, which stares us in the face, that, 
according to the preaching and conduct of our clergy, 
who dwell so much on the retributions of eternity, the 
morally honest and industrious citizen, who does not 
profess their creeds, is far more likely to suffer the 
pains of their hell forever, than the assassin, who 
sheds innocent blood ! These facts are not mentioned 
with a wish to prejudice the mind of the reader 
against the honest intentions of those ministers of 
religion, of whom we speak ; their delusion may be 
strong enough to hide from their understanding the 
utter impropriety of their doctrines. What we wish 
to do, is to show that these terrors of future damnation 
4o not prevent crimes. In Catholic communities, the 
priest can give absolution to the murderer. He has, 
therefore, no terror of future punishment to prevent 
his committing the crime. All he fears is, that he 
may lose his life. Among us, our clergy repair im- 
mediately to the prison, as soon as the murderer is 
lodged in it, for the purpose of preparing him for 
heaven and everlasting bliss ; and it is a very rare cir- 
cumstance that they fail of their purpose. Who, then, 
has occasion to fear this hereafter punishment ? If 
the fear of being detected and punished, in this world, 
where all know that the laws must have their course, 
were taken entirely away, it is altogether likely that 
overt crime would thereby be increased ; but if the 



28 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

prison and the gallows could be avoided, as easily as 
the punishments of the other world can, by due sub- 
mission to the clergy, then would prisons and gallows 
be no hindrance to crime. 

But let us go back to our question, which has been 
answered, and see if the answer given be correct. 
The answer is, 1 must fear sin, in order to prevent me 
from sinning. Will it be asked why I should fear 
sin 1 Answer : Because it will make me miserable if 
I commit it. There is no priest that I can apply to, 
who can prevent my suffering, if I am a sinner. If I 
fear a prison or a gallows, or a punishment in the fu- 
ture world, I may flatter myself that some way may 
be provided, by which I may escape them ; but if I 
fear sin itself, I know, if I am a sinner, I must endure 
that evil. It is perfectly natural for a person to en- 
deavor to avoid an evil, in proportion to its magnitude, 
as viewed by the mind. This being safe ground to 
reason on, we see at once, if we could believe that sin 
is the greatest evil to which we are exposed, we should 
be more cautious to avoid it than any other. The 
great and pernicious mistake, which our divines have 
fallen into, is that of supposing that the evil of sin is 
not in sin, but in a punishment which may, or may 
not be suffered, in the future state. It is impossible 
for them to exonerate themselves from having fallen 
into this error ; for the very argument which they en- 
deavor to maintain, and which we are now examining, 
is a full confession of the fact. They contend that \{ 
the fear of futu/e punishment be removed, restraint 
against sin is gone. So fully confirmed are they in 
this most lamentable error, it is not uncommon for 
them to say, both in public, and in private circles, that 
if there be no hereafter punishment it is no matter 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 29 

what we do, and that if they believed in no such pun* 
ishment, they would commit the worst of crimes. It 
is granted that they seldom go so far. unless they first 
become somewhat irritated in their feelings ; but after 
all, it is only carrying out, to its full extent, the enor- 
mity of their error. What we here state we know to 
be true. But we do not mention it from unkind feel- 
ings towards our brethren ; but solely for the purpose 
of making the merits of the subject plain to the 
reader. 

As the subject we are now laboring is of th© 
utmost consequence to the religious and moral interest 
of community, we feel justified in endeavoring to illus- 
trate it to the understanding of the most feeble minds. 
For this purpose we will make use of a melancholy 
circumstance, which has greatly agitated the people of 
New-England, and carried grief and deep sorrow into 
many thousands of hearts. We mean the murder, 
which people generally believe was committed at Fall 
River. Perhaps few men, in their preaching of future 
punishment, have been more zealous than has been 
the man who people believe committed that deed ; 
and as to fear from the arm of justice, in this world, 
the uncommon efforts which were made to throw 
some possible doubt on the case, show that it was 
great enough to accomplish any purpose that fear is 
capable of accomplishing. Look now at the facts of 
the case. Of what benefit was the doctrine of future 
punishment to the man, who had so long preached it, 
and who committed the murder ? Again ; of what 
use was the fear of punishment, in this world, to him 
who flattered himself that he could commit the mur- 
der, and yet screen himself from the penalty of the 
law 1 It was not in the power of the fear of future 
3* 



30 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTKINE 

punishment, nor of punishment from the laws of the 
land, to prevent the crime. But had that man been 
half as fearful of committing that crime as he was of 
being found out, and punished according to the law, 
the poor girl, whose sad fate we deplore, would not 
have lost her life by his hands. Let it be understood, 
that it is no part of our design, in using the foregoing 
case, to induce any one to believe that the man who 
was accused was guilty, or not guilty j but only to 
show that, if he was guilty, neither the fear of future 
punishment, nor the fear of temporal punishment, was 
of any avail ; while it is perfectly clear, that had the 
crime itself been the object of fear, he would not have 
committed it. 

By the light, in which we now stand, we see that 
the only fear which can be sure to prevent crime, is 
the fear of committing it; and therefore, that sin 
itself ought to be considered as the greatest evil, and 
the evil most to be dreaded. 

The momentous truth, which we have now before 
us, is not altogether unknown to our clergy, who in- 
sist so much on the doctrine of future punishment, 
and the fear thereof, as a guard against sin ; but yet, 
it is a truth which they rarely point out to their hear- 
ers, and a truth, too, which seems to give little or no 
direction to their doctrines or discourses. 

We have noticed one instance, in Professor Stuart's 
Letter to Dr. Channing, in which we found the Pro- 
fessor to be totally inconsistent with himself; and we 
may now avail ourselves of a case, in which we shall 
find Dr. Channing to have fallen into as great an in- 
consistency. In his sermon on the Evil of Sin, he has 
done, in an able manner, excellent justice to the sub- 
ject on which we are now laboring. Speaking of 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 31 

natural and moral evil, the Doctor says, — ' By the first, 
I mean the pain or suffering which springs from out- 
ward condition and events, or from causes independ- 
ent of the will. The latter, that is, moral evil, belongs 
to character and conduct, and is commonly expressed 
by the words, sin, vice, and transgression of the rule of 
right. Now I say, that there is no man, unless he be 
singularly hardened, and an exception to his race, 
who, if these two classes or divisions of evil should 
be clearly and fully presented him in moments of calm 
and deliberate thinking, would not feel, through the 
very constitution of his mind, that sin or vice is more 
to be dreaded than pain. I am willing to take from 
among you the individual who has studied least the 
great question of morality and religion, whose mind 
has grown up with least discipline. If I place before 
such a hearer two examples in strong contrast, — one, 
of a man gaining great property by an atrocious crime, 
and another, exposing himself to great sufferings 
through a resolute purpose of duty, — will he not tell 
me, at once, from a deep moral sentiment, which 
leaves not a doubt on his mind, that the last has cho- 
sen the better part, that he is more to be envied than 
the first 1 On these great questions, what is the chief 
good ? And what is the chief evil ? We are in- 
structed by our own nature. An inward voice has 
told men, even in heathen countries, that excellence 
of character is the supreme good, and that baseness of 
soul and of action involves something worse than suf- 
fering.' A little further on, in the sermon, the Doctor 
says, — * I now add, in the second place, that sin, 
though it sometimes prospers, and never meets its full 
retribution on earth, yet, on the whole, produces more 
present suffering than all things else ; so that expe- 



32 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTUINE 

rience warns us against sin or wrong-doing, as the 
chief evil we can incur/ 

If we except from the foregoing quotations, what 
the Doctor says of the prosperity of sin, some times, 
and his assertion that it never meets its full retrihution 
on earth, we have the sentiment for which we con- 
tend, most clearly set forth, and in a very striking 
manner. He takes the man, who is least disciplined 
in morals as an example ; and he justly contends that 
this man, from deep moral sentiment, which leaves 
not a douht on his mind, will give the preference to 
virtue, though it labor under great sufferings; to vice, 
notwithstanding it succeeds in obtaining great prop- 
erty, provided these two extremes are clearly set before 
him. On this indubitable fact we are willing to rest 
our argument We contend that man would commit 
no vice, if at all times he had clcvirly set before him 
its odious character. And the Doctor allows this to 
hold good, even with the man who is least disciplined 
in morals. Let us try the Doctor's man again. We 
will present to his view a scheme by which he can 
come into possession of a great estate, by an atrocious 
act of wickedness ; and at the same time discover to 
him an opportunity of doing an act of pure justice, 
which moral right requires him to do, but which will 
subject him to severe sufferings ; will he now give the 
preference to virtue, do the just act, and open his bo- 
som to the consequences, and forego the acquisition of 
the great estate, by an act of iniquity ? We say he 
will, if there be real soundness in the Doctor's argu- 
ment. If, from a deep moral principle^ the man gives 
the preference to virtue, he would stand the test of 
this last trial. If the reader should doubt our last 
conclusion, and think that man is too selfish a being 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 33 

to Stand such a trial, we reply, that according to a 
fact which the Doctor has laid down, the more a 
man is attached to himself, the more he prizes 
his own happiness, the more likely he would be to 
stand this trial ; for the Doctor says, and we say 
so too, that ' On the whole, sin produces more present 
suffering than all things else.' Is it possible that any 
man could choose, on selfish principles, the greater 
sufferings, in preference to the lets ? If this is possi- 
ble, it would certainly be dangerous to make him be- 
lieve that the greatest sufferings are in a future state ! 
It would seem that we had now brought this subject 
to a fair issue. And yet it is possible that the ques- 
tion may arise, What is the reason that men ever do 
wrong ? The answer is, The truth which we have, 
by the assistance of the Doctor's sound argument^ 
brought to view, is not at all times realized. 

But we suggested that Dr. Channing has fallen in- 
to an inconsistency ; this we now proceed to make 
evident. What we have before excepted from what 
we quoted from his sermon, seems very inconsistent 
with the rest of the quotation ; for if sin itself is ' more 
to be dreaded than pain,' it is absurd to say that it 
^ sometimes prospers.' Would it not be absurd to say 
that pain prospers ? If so, according to the Doctor's ar- 
gument, it is still more absurd to say that sin, which 
is more to be dreaded than pain, ever prospers. But 
he has said more in the same sermon. For the pur- 
pose of making out a worse punishment for sin in an- 
other world, than the evil which it brings with it in 
this, he really inculcates the opinion that sin brings 
some enjoyments to the wicked, in the present life. 
He says, * Accordingly, sin, though, as we have seen, 
it produces great misery, is still left to compass many 
of its objects, often to prosper, often to be gain. Vice, 



34 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

bad as it is, has often many pleasures in its train. The 
worst of men partake, equally with the good, the light 
of the sun, the rain, the harvest, the accommodations 
and improvements of civilized life, and sometimes ac- 
cumulate more largely outward goods. And thus sin 
has its pleasures, and escapes many of its natural and 
proper fruits ! ' Does this agree with the Doctor's decla- 
ration, before noticed, that on the whole, sin produces 
more present suffering than all things else 1 No ; it 
is so far from it, that it amounts to the very argument, 
which temptation to sin always uses to ensnare her 
wretched votaries ! If we ask the vilest sinner what 
inducements have led him along in his wicked course, 
it would puzzle him to return a more ample reply than 
the Doctor has here furnished. If men could not be 
persuaded to believe what the Doctor has here taught, 
they would never seek happiness in the ways of vice 
and wickedness. This every candid person will ac- 
knowledge. How much is it to be lamented that min- 
isters of religion, those who are looked up to as the 
guardians of morality, should use the only arguments 
with the people, by which they can be encouraged to 
persevere in wrong-doing ! We would, by no means, 
be understood to insinuate that Dr. Channing, or any 
other preacher, does this unhappy work, knowing its 
tendency. No doubt is entertained that he designs it 
for the hest of purposes ; but his means are at war 
with what he designs to effect. 

In relation to the arguments we have been laboring 
to lay before the reader, we have selected those incon- 
sistencies from the writings of Professor Stuart and 
Dr. Channing, particularly, because they are prominent 
leaders of the two denominations to which they be- 
long; and therefore, their contradictions may be 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 35 

taken as a fair sample of the common preaching of 
these two sects. These doctors, as well as all who 
preach the doctrine of future punishment, have relied 
on the terrors of that punishment, to induce men to 
be pious and virtuous ; and yet they know that the 
most vicious and most abominable, in all Christian 
countries, have been brought up from childhood to be- 
lieve that doctrine ; and a the same time have been 
educated in the belief, that sin brings many enjoyments 
in this world, and is attended with great prosperity in 
the very things which they are taught to love ; and to 
complete the work of iniquity, they are furnished with 
the means of escaping all punishment hereafter ! 

Thus far our investigations have been directed to 
ascertain, by a careful and studied reference to the 
moral constitution of man, and the laws by which the 
human mind is governed, whether true religion and 
genuine morality have need of the doctrine of a fu- 
ture state of rewards and punishments for their estab- 
lishment and prosperity ; and. we feel satisfied that the 
indisputable truths, which have most evidently appear- 
ed, all harmonize in their testimony against the utility of 
such doctrine ; and moreover, that they show, beyond 
a reasonable doubt, that such doctrine and preaching 
are of an injurious tendency. To show, still further, 
this unhappy tendency, on the principles of the law of 
mind, on which reliance may safely be placed, we 
here add but one fact more. It is well known, and 
will be acknowledged by every candid person, that the 
human heart is capable of becoming soft, or hard ; 
kind, or unkind ; merciful or unmerciful, by education 
and habit. On this principle we contend, that the in- 
fernal torments, which false religion has placed in the 
future world, and which ministers have, with an over 



36 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

flowing zeal, so constantly held up to the people, and 
urged with all their learning and eloquence, have 
tended so to harden the hearts of the professors of 
this religion, that they have exercised, towards their 
fellow-creatures, a spirit of enmity, which but too well 
corresponds with the relentless cruelty of their doc- 
trine, and the wrath which they have imagined to ex- 
ist in our heavenly Father. By having such an ex- 
ample constantly before their eyes, they have become 
so transformed into its image, that, whenever they have 
had the power, they have actually executed a ven- 
geance on men and women, which evinced that the 
cruelty of their doctrine had overcome the native 
kindness and compassion of the human heart. 

Another ground, on which the advocates of a fu- 
ture state of rewards and punishments place much 
dependence for the support of that doctrine, they 
denominate analogy. We think it too hazardous to 
attempt anything like an accurate statement of the 
particular arguments, which are made to depend on 
this principle, in favor of this doctrine ; for we might 
be liable to some mistakes, which would represent the 
views of its advocates differently from their mode of 
representing them. Our liability to misrepresent in 
such an attempt, seems unavoidable, on account of the 
fact that there has been nothing like a system of rea- 
soning yet exhibited on the general subject. We feel 
safe, however, in saying, that, as far as we have been 
informed, those who rely on what they call analogy to 
support the doctrine of future retribution, hold that in 
all respects, which are necessary to carry sin and its mis- 
eries into the future state, that state will be analogous 
to this mode of being. So that, reasoning from analo- 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 37 

gy, as noral agents sin, and thereby render them- 
selves miserable in this world, the same moral agents 
may continue to do the same in the world to come.- 
In connexion with this argument it is urged, that as it 
is evident to our senses that sin often escapes a just ret- 
ribution in this world, it must be recompensed in anoth- 
er state, or divine justice must forever be deprived of 
its claims. 

On reasonings of such a character we shall use the 
freedom to say that they appear to have no higher au- 
thority than mere human speculations injudiciously 
managed. That they are nothing more than simple 
speculations, is evident from the fact that they are not 
founded on any divine authority. We presume that 
their own advocates never ventured to support them 
by scripture authority. And that they are managed 
injudiciously is very apparent from the circumstance, 
that while they profess to be justified by the principle 
of analogy, they are a direct denial of the very analo- 
gy on which they depend. Theologians who endeav- 
or to exert an influence over the minds of people, by 
means of these speculations, are constantly urging 
that in this world we see sin procuring for its agents 
the riches and honors of thevvorld, while it escapes 
judicial detection, and goes unpunished. Now if they 
were consistent with their analogy and with themselves, 
they would see at once, that in the next state of exist- 
ence sin will procure for its agents the riches and 
honors of that world, and there as well as here, es- 
cape judicial detection, and go unpunished. They 
would likewise see that as divine justice can quiet its 
own claims in this world without administering a full 
and adequate retribution of human conduct, it may do 
the same in the future state. In this way we frinrht pro- 
4 ^ .' 



38 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

ceed and make the future state precisely like the present ; 
for we have no more authority for carrying sin and its 
miseries into a future world, than we have for carrying 
all other things into that state which we find in this. 
Reasoning from all that we know, we must believe 
that so long as men sin they will do so' from the be- 
guiling power of temptation. If then we believe 
that sin will exist in the future state, we must suppose 
that temptations will there act on the mind with a de- 
ceiving influence. In this world the wicked are allur- 
ed with the hopes of temporal gain, and these attrac- 
tions are strengthened by the belief that crime will 
not be detected, and that punishment will be avoided. 
Were it not for these hopes and allurements no wrong- 
doing would be practised in this world ; and to suppose 
that we shall transgress the law of God in the future 
world, without any temptation, is a speculation alto- 
gether arbitrary and capricious, as Vv'ell as contrary to 
analogy. 

If we allow the doctrine of future retribution to 
stand on the principle of analogy, we must also con- 
clude, that as those who are called good men, and 
pious saints in this world, often forsake the right way, 
turn from the holy commandments, and fail into divers 
sins and temptations, and become wretched in \vicked- 
ness, — so, in the future world, the saints may depart 
from the path of divine rectitude, and debase them- 
selves in the moral defilement of all manner of iniquity. 
It is only necessary to allow that the temptations 
which allure men in this world, will exist hereafter, 
and exert their influence there as they do here, in 
order to establish the opinion that saints will fiill into 
sin in the future world, on as good authority as stands 
the opinion that sin will in any case be found in that 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 39 

State. Moreover, as it is true that in this world, many 
are every day becoming more reformed, and are en- 
gaging in the good work of emendation of life ; and 
others are seduced from virtuous sentiments and moral 
habits into the paths of sin and vice, — so we may ex- 
pect to find the same versatile state in the world to 
come ; some growing better, and some worse, and 
these same changing characters and pursuits, from 
time to time, forever and ever. 

If we allow this doctrine of analogy, we shall not 
only maintain that the wicked will continue to sin in 
the future state, but that the righteous, who may re- 
main steadfast in holiness hereafter, and even advance 
continually in moral purity, will there suffer, and 
suffer forever, as they do in this world, the just for the 
unjust. This suffermg is necessarily connected with 
the sentiments and virtues of the religion of Jesus 
Christ ; and is now embraced in the professions of 
religionists of all denominations. If the pious in this 
world are so distressed, as they profess to be, with the 
apprehensions which they entertain of the future suf- 
ferings of their wicked fellow-creatures, what must be 
their anguish hereafter, when they shall see, in awful 
reality, the sufferings which they now have only in 
prospect ! On this principle of analogy, parents, who 
shall be pious and holy in the world to come, will 
suffer forever, by beholding their own dear children 
pressing forward in the ways of iniquity, and suffering 
the dire retributions of sin. Children, also, who shall 
there be righteous, must suffer continually by seeing 
the parents, whom they love, plunging into wicked- 
ness, and enduring the torments which divine justice 
shall there inflict. 

We must consider it unaccountable, why the advo- 



40 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

world to come, on the principle of analogy, while they 
cates of future sin and suffering carry them into the 
are unwilling to carry into that state the Ciirislian vir- 
tues, on the same principle. They contend thai it is 
entirely inconsistent with the laws of the human mind, 
to expect that sinners will be so changed at death as 
to possess hereafter no evil propensities. How, then, 
can they believe that death will so change the condi- 
tion of the saints, that they will hereafter be entirely 
destitute of those Christian virtues, which are here 
indispensable to the Christian character, and which 
cause them in this world to feel so deep an interest in 
the reformation of the wicked ? In this world, they 
allow that the more the Christian is like the divine 
Master, the more he feels the welfare of sinners press- 
ing on his mind, the more fervently does he plead, in 
his prayers, for mercy in favor of the wicked. Will 
death end all these holy desires, and discontinue all 
these fervent and gracious prayers 1 If so, death will 
effect a greater change in them, than the wicked 
would experience by the discontinuance of sinful pro- 
pensities. Sinful propensities never have the full and 
cordial support of the sinner's w^hole mind. There is 
always a greater or a less reluctance in the soul that 
is made a captive by wicked allurements. But this is 
not the case with the faithful Christian, while pursuing 
the holy path in which divine wisdom and truth direct 
him. He feels no reproofs of conscience, for running 
too fast in the shining way of love to God and good 
will to man. Should he be so changed, as to feel no 
holy desires for the conversion and salvation of sin- 
ners, while sinners are thick around him, his change 
would be total. But should the sinner relinquish en- 
tirely his vicious desires, he would only conform tq 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 41 

what his conscience always told him was his duty. If 
then it be unreasonable, and contrary to the laws of 
the human mind, to allow that man will not continue 
to sin, after this mortal state of flesh and blood is dis-^ 
solved ; it must be granted that it is far more unrea- 
sonable, and a still greater violation of the laws of the 
human mind, to suppose that at death those holy 
affections and divine exercises of the saints, which 
are both required and justified by the very principles 
of the gospel of Christ, will be discontinued, when 
the ' earthly house of this tabernacle is dissolved.' 

In taking a general view of this weighty subject, it 
seems impossible to avoid surprise at the zeal which is 
manifested in support of the doctrine which carries 
sin and misery into the future state, but resigns at 
death all those holy feelings, those heavenly compas- 
sions, and those merciful desires, which in this world 
engage the saints in the blessed cause of bringing sin- 
ners to repentance. Finding a stream so broad, so 
deep, and so rapid, it is natural to inquire for the foun- 
tain from which it flows. Does it flow from that God 
who is love ? Can infinite love take pleasure in con- 
tinuing sin beyond this mortal state, and in discon- 
tinuing those compassions, and that heavenly mercy, 
which so kindly flow towards the unhappy guilty in 
this v/orld ? In reasoning thus, do we reason from 
analogy ? No ; we contradict analogy. For, if in this 
world the love of God, in his saints, regards the 
wicked with pity, reasoning from analogy, we must 
come to the conclusion that the saints, in the future 
state, will exercise the same compassions towards the 
wicked, if there should be any in that state. In this 
world, the hearts of the virtuous are constantly bleed- 
ing with pity for those whose vices render them 
4* 



42 



EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 



wretched. Do we reason analo^rically when we say 
that the vicious will continue their vices in the future 
world, but that the virtuous will there feel no compas- 
sion for them ? We feel very confident that the 
stream, Avhose fountain we are seeking, does not flow 
from that God who is love. 

Does it have its origin in the gospel of Jesus, whose 
mission authorized him to bear our sins in his own 
body, to suffer, the just for the unjust, to wash us 
from our sins in his own blood, to take away the sin 
of the world, through death to destroy him who had 
the power of death, and deliver those, who, through 
fear of death, were all t'leir iife-time subject to bond- 
age? If in tills world Jesus loved sinners, and gave 
himself a ransom for sinners, do w^e reason analogi- 
cally when we come to the conclusion, that by his di- 
vine authority sin is to continue in the future state, 
but that there he will have no compassion, no love for 
sinners ? 

Shall we find the object of our inquiry in the natu- 
ral aifections of the human heart 1 Do the sympa- 
thies of our common nature supply the stream, whose 
origin we seek ? Ask those unhappy fathers and 
mothers, whose hearts have ached for nuany days and 
nights, by reason of the miseries endured by their vi- 
cious children. Will they inform us on their death- 
beds, that they hope soon to be free from sorrow, and 
see, in the coming world, the children, whom they 
now love and pity, pursuing the paths of iniquity, and 
suffering the torments of a righteous retribution, with- 
out feeling for them the least compassion ? Is this 
according to analogy 1 Surely, we have not yet found 
the source of this deep and wide stream, whose waters 
are so rapid. Should we carefully follow this current 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 43 

to its fountain, we should find it coming forth from a 
dark cavern of iniquity, from which divine love and 
heavenly wisdom are excluded. And as is the foun- 
tain, such is the stream. 

The object we have in view in presenting this our 
reasoning on analogy to the reader, is, that it may be 
seen, that if this scheme be allowed, and sin and mis- 
ery thereby carried into the future state, we must 
allow that in the future world there can be no such 
thing hoped for as happiness for any, without a mix- 
ture of mental pain and sorrow, which will be there 
increased beyond what the virtuous' endure in this life, 
in proportion as sin and suffering may there be greater 
than are known in this world. If all this be consist- 
ent with the gospel and religion of Jesus, Chri^jtians 
have before them a most gloomy prospect. 

Let us trace this analogy still further. It is well 
known, that in this world the wicked are constantly 
inflicting distressing injuries on the upright and vir- 
tuous. According to this scheme of analogy, this 
practice is to continue in the world to come. This 
seems to be necessarily embraced in the notion that 
sin will there be committed : for it would be no small 
reformation in this world, if the wicked would confine 
their wrongs to their own circle, and cease to injure 
the innocent and the upright. 

Again : It is contended, by the advocates of the 
doctrine which carries sin and suffering into the world 
to come, that the belief that there is no punishment 
in the future state for sin committed in this, and that 
sin is fully recompensed in this world where it is com- 
mitted, is of a licentious tendency ; that the preaching 
of such a sentiment is an encouragement to vice ; 
that to dissuade the wicked from their wicked ways, it 



44 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

is necessary to hold up the terrors of a future state of 
retribution. Then, according to analogy, as soon as 
we find ourselves in the future world, it will then be 
necessary to inform those who shall be wicked there, 
that they are in danger of punishment in a future 
state. It will then be licentious to believe and teach 
that all punishment for sin is in that state where it 
will be committed. According to this analogy, sin 
will never be fully punished in the state in which it is 
committed, but the transgressor must always look into 
a future state for retribution. Also, as the righteous 
are not fully rewarded for their good works in this 
world, and as they are obliged to look for a full recom- 
pense hereafter, without which prospect they would 
have no inducement to live godly lives, — so, according 
to analogy, when they arrive to the future rewards, 
they will have no inducements to do well in that state, 
unless they can enjoy the prospect of being recom- 
pensed in a state beyond that. 

Having extended our inquiry into the merits of the 
arguments in favor of a future state of retribution, 
which rely on analogy for their support, to as great a 
length as the nature of the subject seems to render 
necessary, we may now proceed to call the doctrine in 
question, by the assistance of the Scriptures, as they 
relate to divine retribution. 

In the following inquiry respecting the punishment 
of sin, a constant reference will be had to certain doc- 
trines, which are believed in the Christian church, and 
held to be essential to the faith of the gospel. This 
being embraced in our design, it may contribute to 
render our arguments more intelligible, if we first 
present the reader with a concise statement of those 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 45 

doctrines which will be called in question ; that hav- 
ing them in mind, he may the better judge of their 
soundness, by comparing'them with such Scripture au* 
thority as may be presented. 

1. Rej-pecting sin and its punishment, it is believed 
that our Creator views it to be hn infinite evil, being 
a violation of his infinite law ; and that nothing short 
of endless punishment can be its just retribution. 

2. Consistently with the foregoing, it is believed 
that the punishment of the sin which men commit in 
this mortal state, is not inflicted nor endured in this 
life, but that it will be inflicted and endured in the fu- 
ture, immortal state. 

3. It is believed that all those of the human family, 
who shall finally obtain salvation by Jesus Christ, will 
be so forgiven their transgressions as not to be punish- 
ed for them. 

4. It is believed that a realizing sense of the truth 
of this endless punishment is indispensable to true 
piety, and is the proper support and defence of moral 
virtue. And 

5. This doctrine of endless punishment is one of the 
principal bonds of fellowship in the church, as no one 
who does not believe it, is allowed to be sound in the 
faith of the gospel, or a worthy member of the Chris-^ 
tian communion. 

Having these sentiments thus before us, and keep- 
ing them in constant view, we shall proceed to the 
consideration of certain facts, and certain declarations 
of the Scriptures, inquiring, as we pass along, how 
such facts and declarations can be made to agree with 
them. 

Before Adam sinned, the ' Lord Goci commanded 



46 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou 
mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the knowledge of 
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ; for in the day 
that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die/ (Gen. ii. 
16, 17.) The facts which relate to the subject of this di- 
vine command and threatening, and which we now wish 
to have considered, are the following : 1st, It must be al- 
lowed that it was, at least, as necessary for man to know 
before transgression what punishment would be inflicted 
if he should transcrress, as to be informed of it after 
the offence had taken place. 2d, If the doctrine of 
endless punishment or any punishment, in a future 
state, be true now, it was true when the foregoing con> 
mand and threatening were communicated to Adam. 
3d, If a belief in this doctrine of future punishment 
be now indispensable to true piety, and if it be the 
proper support and defence of moral virtue now, it 
was equally so before Adam sinned. The question 
then occurs, in relation to the subject, and these facts, 
why did not the Lord God state the doctrine of future 
punishment in the threatening with which he accom- 
panied his command ? In place of doing so, he men- 
tioned no punishment but that which was to take place 
in the day of transgression : ' In the day thou eatest 
thereof, thou shalt surely die.' Here is no intimation 
of a day of judgment, at the tribunal of which Adam 
would be brought thousands of years after his mortal 
days were ended ; nothing here about the intolerable 
pains of hell in an eternal state, about which there is 
BO much preached in our times. How are these things 
to be accounted for ? If sin is not punished in this 
state of existence, but in a future state, can any one 
conceive why the Lord God should have been so ex- 
plicit in stating the punishment immediately in the day 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 47 

of transgression, and why he should have omitted to 
give the least intimation of its being inflicted in a fu- 
ture world ? Did the Creator, in this case, think it 
unnecessary to present to Adam this indispensable in- 
ducement to piety, this defence and support of moral 
virtue ? 

It seems worthy of careful notice, that the Creator 
was as silent on the subject of future punishment, in 
his communication to Adam and Eve, after transgres- 
sion, as he was before. After Adam had sinned, the 
Lord God called both the tempter and the tempted to 
an account immediately. lie did not inform them 
that he had fixed the day of their trial in eternity, in a 
future state of existence ; but he called them to judg- 
ment immediately. To the tempter he said, ' Because 
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, 
and above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly 
shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of 
thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the 
woman, and between thy seed and her seed : he shall 
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto 
the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow, 
and thy conception ; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth 
children ; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and 
he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Be- 
cause thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, 
and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded 
thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it ; cursed is the 
ground for thy sake : in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all 
the days of thy life. Thorns also and thistles shall it 
bring forth to thee ; and thou shalt eat the herb of the 
field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, 
till thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast 
thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 



48 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

return.' (Gen. iii. 14-19.) All which is here recorded, 
not only belongs to the present state of mortality, but 
is peculiar to it. Even to the tempter there is no inti- 
mation that he had exposed himself to any sufferings 
beyond that life which was supported by dust. He was 
not told that he should go on his belly and eat dust 
after he was dead, but all the days of his life. The Lord 
God gave no intimation to the woman that her sorrow 
or conception should be multiplied in eternity, or that 
she should bring forth children in sorrow in a future 
state, or that in that state her desire would be to her 
husband, or that in eternity, thousands of years after 
their bodies had returned to dust, he should rule over 
her. Nor was Adam told that the ground should be 
cursed for his sake in a future state, nor that it should 
bring forth thorns and thistles in eternity, or that in 
eternity he should eat the herb of the field, or th-it in 
the sweat of his face he should eat bread in a future 
state ; but only until he returned to the ground out of 
which he was taken. 

It seems perfectly reasonable that our professed di- 
vines, who consider the doctrine of future endless 
punishment so essential to piety, as such a pillar in 
the temple of religion, so essential for the support and 
defence of moral virtue, should be called on to recon- 
cile the facts which we have noticed, embraced in 
the scripture account of the first transgression, with 
their views. Can they inform us why the Creator did 
not threaten Adam with punishment in eternity, if such 
punishment was intended ? Can they render any £ood 
reason why the Creator did not present this pious doc- 
trine to Adam, and enforce it on his mind with as 
much energy as they now endeavor to enforce it? 
Was it because the Creator had but a smdl rei^ard to 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 49 

the support and defence of moral virtue, that he neg- 
lected to threaten Adam with any punishment after 
he should return to the dust from whence he was 
taken ? These queries they ought to solve ; and then 
proceed to inform us what better reason there is now 
for them to hold up this doctrine of hereafter punish- 
ment, than there was for the Creator to make it known 
in the beginning. 

Having noticed the first transgression, and all the 
retributions which divine wisdom saw fit to award to 
the offenders, and finding them all confined to the 
present mortal state of man, we may pass to consider 
the second sin of which mention is made in the Scrip- 
tures, and the punishment with which it was visited. 
Many and various have been the conjectures respect- 
ing what was meant by the tree of the knowledge of 
good and evil ; and about what the first transgression 
consisted in, various opinions have oeen entertained; 
but the second sin mentioned in the sacred records is 
so definitely stated, that no difference of opinion re- 
specting it is entertained. It was the murder of Abel 
by his brother Cain. For this act of violence the 
Lord said to Cain, ' The voice of thy brother's blood 
crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou 
cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth 
to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When 
thou tiliest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield 
unto thee her strength. A fugitive and a vagabond 
shah thou be in the earth.' — (Gen. iv. 10-— 12.) 

For this atrocious sin we are informed, in the above 
quoted passage, that Cain was cursed ; but the curse 
was not put off to a future state ; nor was the judg- 
ment deferred until Cain went into another world 



50 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

The day of judgment came immediately, and he was 
doomed to his punishment without delay. The curse 
which was denounced on this murderer was from the 
ground which had received his brother's blood ; and it 
was said to him, * now art thou cursed/ It was not inti- 
mated to Cain that he would be called to give an ac- 
count of this murder in a future state ; nor was he 
told that he was in danger of being punished in eter- 
nity. He was not told that he should be a fugitive 
and a vagabond in a future state, but in the earth. 

If the preachers of the present day, who so zeal- 
ously contend for the doctrine of future punishment, 
and who attach to it those weighty consequences 
which we have noticed, were as circumspect as the 
importance of divine truth demands, it is believed that 
before they would proceed to sentence Cain to a state 
of endless punishment, they would endeavor to render 
some good reason why the Creator did not, though he 
intends doing it hereafter ; and also why it is now any 
more necessary for pious, religious, or virtuous pur- 
poses, to hold up this doctrine, than it was when sin 
first made its appearance in the world. 

We have a much more formidable account of sih 
and its punishment, after the earth became extensive- 
ly inhabited, than we have in the two instances which 
we have noticed. The case of Cain was evidently 
considerably advanced, as to magnitude, beyond that 
of his parents. It is very evident that the crime of 
murder committed by Cain, was more heinous in the 
sight of God, than was the offence of Adam and Eve. 
This we infer from what was denounced as retribu- 
tions in the several cases. There is indeed some de- 
gree of similarity in these cases, but we are not in- 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION, 51 

formed that either Adam or Eve was cursed, or driv- 
en from the presence of the Lord, or made a fugitive 
and a vagabond in the earth ; but these vi^eighty de- 
nunciations on Cain caused him to exclaim, * My pun- 
ishment is greater than I can bear.' This complaint, 
we are not informed, was made by Adam or Eve, or 
that they had an occasion thus to exclaim. Their 
condition, under all the inconveniences of the right- 
eous retributions rendered them by their compassion- 
ate Creator^, was far from being intolerable. 

But in the days of Noah, when men became multi- 
plied on the earth, we are told that ' God saw that the 
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that 
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was on- 
ly evil continually. And the Lord said, I will destroy 
man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, 
both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the 
fowls of the air.' — (Gen. vi. 5 — 7.) 

This determination to destroy the whole race of 
man, Noah and his family excepted, on account of 
human transgression, evidently indicates that, in the 
sight of the Creator, the provocation for severe retri- 
bution was, in the case under consideration, much 
greater than in either of the former. Even in Cain's 
case, God not only spared his life, but provided for his 
defence, so that others should not take it. But now, 
wickedness has arrived to such an extent, has become 
so general, and wears such an aggravated character, 
that a besom of destruction is appointed, and men are 
swept from the earth. ' And all flesh died that moved 
upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of 
beast, and of every creeping thing, that creepeth upon 
the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was 
the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died. 



52 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

And every living substance was destroyed which was 
upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, and 
the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven ; and 
they were destroyed from the earth : and Noah only 
remained alive, and they that were with him in the 
ark.'— (Gen. vii. 21 — 23.) 

But in this most deplorable instance of sin, and its 
truly awful retribution, we find no mention of punish- 
ment in the future state. Even to righteous Noah, no 
hint was given that after the men of that sinful age 
should be destroyed by the flood from the earth, a pun- 
ishment infinitely worse would be inflicted on them. 
Noah is said to be a ^ preacher of righteousness ; ' 
(2 Pet. ii. 5.) but we are not informed that he either 
preached the doctrine of future punishment, or believ- 
ed it. 

It is true that preachers of our times profess to be 
commissioned from heaven to preach the doctrine of 
future, endless punishment, and to represent it with 
all the horrors which are frightful to human imagina- 
tion. But we are persuaded that it is a duty incum- 
bent on them, before they engage in this tremendous 
work, to be able to account for the entire absence of 
this doctrine from all the accounts we have of the sin- 
fulness of men in Noah's time, and of their fearful 
destruction therefor. If the Creator saw fit not to 
threaten nor denounce future punishment, either in the 
case of Adam's or Cain's offence, because their crimes 
were not of the greatest magnitude ; and had reserved 
the manifestation of an infinitely greater penalty for 
an occasion which might justify its severity, we should 
suppose that such an occasion had occurred in the 
wickedness of the people in Noah's day, if such ever 
existed. If it be allowed that the doctrine of future 



d 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 53 

punishment is such a principal support and defence of 
piety and moral virtue, as it is supposed to be by its 
advocates, does it not lead to the conclusion that the 
sin of Adam, the murder committed by Cain, and the 
vast aggregate of iniquity which condemned the old 
world to entire destruction, might have been nearly, if 
not wholly prevented, by a full and clear manifestation 
of this salutary doctrine ? In the light of these cir- 
cumstances, and the reflections suggested by them, it 
seems altogether unaccountable why no intimation 
should have been given of this doctrine in the accounts 
which we have already noticed. 

According to Bible chronology, more than sixteen 
hundred years after the creation of man had passed 
away, when the Creator manifested his disapprobation 
of man's sinfulness in the destruction of the world by 
the flood ; still do we find no evidence that he had yet 
seen fit to make his creatures acquainted with the dan- 
ger they were in, according to the opinion we are con- 
sidering, of being forever punished after death. The 
loss of life was the extent of the retribution for trans- 
gression, of which any mention is made in scripture 
record, up to this time. 

We may now notice the remarkable account of the 
sinfulness of Sodom, and the cities of the plain, to- 
gether with the truly awful destruction by which they 
were overthrown. By the account of this memorable 
case, we are informed that these cities were destroyed 
by fire from heaven, for the sinfulness of their inhab- 
itants. Let this be kept in mind, while we carefully 
examine the record, to see if any mention be made of 
punishing these abominable, sinful people after they 
were consumed in the flames of their cities. After 
5* 



54 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

the angels had brought Lot and his wife and hiis 
daughters out of Sodom, one of them said to Lot, 
' Escape for thy life ; look not behind thee, neither 
stay thou in all the plain ; escape to the mountain, lest 
thou be consumed.' — (Gen. xix. 17.) In this most 
alarming crisis, when the angel of God was urging 
Lot to make his escape from danger, it was for his life 
only. No mention was made of any danger to which 
his immortal soul was exposed in eternity, whether he 
left the city or staid in it. And concerning Lot's 
wife, who, heedless of the angel's express command 
not to look behind her, looked back, and was turned 
into a pillar of salt, there is no mention of her being 
punished in a future state. 

Respecting the destruction of those cities, we read, 
* Then the Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon Go- 
morrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heav- 
en. And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, 
and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which 
grew upon the ground.' — (Gen. xix. 24, 25.) Here 
we find no intimation concerning any punishment in- 
flicted on those wretched sinners in a future state. 
More than two thousand years had now passed away 
after man was created ; four very particular accounts 
are recorded of instances of very heinous transgres- 
sions, and also of due retributions inflicted by God 
himself, and yet no hint is recorded of any punish- 
ment after man's mortal state was ended. No, the 
time had not yet come in which the all-wise Creator 
saw fit to induce man to be pious and virtuous by the 
influence of the doctrine of a future state of retribu- 
tion. 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 55 

A few years before the overthrow of Sodom, we are 
informed, that God communicated to Abraham certain 
things which were to take place respecting his descend- 
ants, in the then future ages ; some of which we may 
notice as having a relation to our present subject. 
'And he said unto Abraham, Know of a surety that 
thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, 
and shall serve them ; and they shall afflict them four 
hundred years. And also that nation whom they shall 
serve, will I judge ; and afterwards shall they come 
out with great substance.' — (Gen. xv. 13, 14.) This 
prophetic declaration was evidently fulfilled by the so- 
journing of the Israelites in Egypt, the hard servitude 
to which they were subjected, and the memorable 
plagues which a judicial Providence brought on their 
oppressors. Of these circumstances, two will be h^re 
noticed, as particularly relative to our present inquiry. 
The first we shall notice is the time when God judged 
the Egyptians, and punished them for their cruel op- 
pressions. According to the common doctrine con- 
cerning a day of general judgment at the end of this 
natural world, and in a future state, we should expect 
to find that the judgment of the Egyptians would take 
place at that time. If not in this world, but in the 
next the sins of men are to be judged, God has not yet 
judged that nation which oppressed Israel. But if we 
are careful to understand the divine declaration above 
cited, we must duly notice that God judged that nation 
before the Israelites left Egypt ; for the text says, *And 
also that nation whom they shall serve will I judge ; 
and afterwards shall they come out with great sub- 
stance.' Thus we find that the day of judgment, in 
which God rendered to the oppressors of the descend- 
ants of his servant Abraham, the just retributions 



56 EXAMINATION OP THE DOCTRINE 

which their unrighteous oppressions deserved, was be- 
fore Israel went out of Egypt. 

The second particular in the circumstances of this 
case, which we shall here notice, regards the nature 
of the retribution rendered. This inquiry brings into 
view the plagues with which Pharaoh was threatened, 
and which his hardness of heart and stubborn rebel- 
lion against God, brought upon him and his people. 

The plagues which Moses and Aaron were author- 
ized to announce to Pharaoh, to induce him to let the 
Hebrews go out of his land, and which were actually 
brought on the Egyptians, though they were fearful 
signs and grievous judgments, were all of a temporal 
nature, were inflicted on the people and on the land in 
the sight of living men, and were all ended before 
Israel left Egypt. The river Nile and all the waters 
of the land were turned to blood ; frogs were sent in 
judgment; lice also; flies, and murrain on cattle; 
boils breaking forth with blains ; a grievous hail min- 
gled with fire ; locusts ; darkness, and the first born 
of the Egyptians slain. These ten fearful judgments 
seemed to exhaust the treasures of wrath which had 
accumulated against the Egyptians in consequence of 
the cruel bondage imposed on the Hebrews, and in 
consequence of their unmerciful oppressions. But 
what are all these in comparison with the terrors of 
the day of judgment, which are now announced by 
the Christian doctors ! and what are they when com- 
pared with the endless sufferings which these doctors 
say they are authorized to hold up to the people, as 
inducements to piety, religion and virtue ! 

Was it because Pharaoh and his people had sinned 
so little, that God threatened them with no punish- 
ment in the future world ? and was it because their 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 57 

wickedness was so slight that nothing but temporal 
judgments were inflicted ? Will our doctors plead 
that in those times, of which we are now speaking, 
piety, religion, and moral virtue could be supported by 
milder and more gentle means than in our days 1 Or 
will they attempt to assign some good reason why the 
Creator should then withhold the only means which 
he knew would ever prove efficacious in turning men 
from their wicked ways to serve him ? Two thousand 
five hundred years, and more, had passed away, from 
the time man was created to the time of the plagues 
and judgments of Egypt ; Adam's transgression had 
received the retribution which God threatened, Cain's 
murder had been punished by God himself, the old 
world for its abominations had been swept from the 
face of the earth, Sodom and the cities of the plain, 
for their wickedness, had been overthrown by fire 
from God out of heaven ; and now is fulfilled the ten- 
fold vengeance of heaven on sinful Egypt, and yet 
not one allusion to a future state of punishment ! We 
know that our doctors profess to be fully authorized to 
doom Pharaoh to a state of endless punishment, and 
that they quote the word of God to him, in support of 
their judgment in the case. See Exodus ix. 15, 16 : 
* For now will I stretch out my hand, that I may smite 
thee and thy people with pestilence : and thou shalt 
be cut off" from the earth. And in very deed for this 
cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my 
power; and that my name may be declared through-* 
out all the earth.' It is true that our doctors are too 
cautious to attempt to prove that they have any au« 
thority for applying this passage to the support of pun^ 
ishment in another world ; and if they were half as 
prudent in their endeavors to understand its true 



58 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

sense, they would see, at once, that in place of ever 
alluding to punishment hereafter, pestilence, which 
was inflicted in this state, is specified in the text, and 
it is asserted that Pharaoh should be ' cut off from the 
earth/ This is the extent, the utmost reach of retri- 
bution. And it is of importance to remark that the 
whole was ordered by the Divine Being, not for the 
purpose of making his vengeance known and felt in 
the eternal world ; but to make his power and name 
known and ' declared throughout all the earth.' 

We shall not release our doctors from what we deem 
their duty in respect to our general subject. We do 
most solemnly demand of them to assign some satis- 
factory reason for the entire omission of their indis- 
pensable doctrine of future retribution for so long a 
time. They will not allow that men can be duly pre- 
pared for happy existence hereafter, unless they fully 
believe in this doctrine. How then was it in those 
times to which we have alluded ? Did all who lived 
and died in those ancient times, leave the world un- 
prepared to meet their final judge ? Even the doc- 
trine of a general judgment, in the future state, is no 
where hinted in a single passage relating to the wick- 
edness of mankind in those ages. When the Creator 
called Adam and Eve to an account, and pronounced 
on them such retributions as his wisdom dictated, he 
did not inform them that the final judgment of their 
conduct was reserved for a future world. So likewise 
when Cain, for the murder of his brother, was judged 
and condemned, and when the retributions of divine 
justice were specified, he was not informed that all 
this was only a foretaste of something future, and that 
he must await his trial at the general judgment, when, 
in a future state, all mankind would be brought to 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 59 

judgment. Nor have we any information which would 
justify the belief that Noah ever informed the wicked 
people of his day, who were destroyed by the flood, 
that they would have to answer for their sins at the 
bar of God in a future state, after the approaching 
flood should take them away. A similar neglect is 
evident in the account we have noticed concerning 
the judgment of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Ze- 
boim ; no intimation was given that another trial, 
another day of judgment awaited the inhabitants of 
these cities, in a future state. So also, in all that is 
said to Pharaoh, and of the punishment of his iniqui- 
ties and the sins of his people, no hint is given that 
they would be brought to another trial in a future 
world, for which occasion God had reserved the most 
severe of his judgments. So far from this, God said 
to him. Exodus ix. 14 : ' For I will at this time send 
all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy ser- 
vants, and upon thy people, that thou mayest know 
that there is none like me in all the earth.' This is 
a very different doctrine from that which teaches that 
God reserves infinitely worse plagues for men in a fu- 
ture state, than any they endure in this. 

If a more genuine piety, a more refined morality 
could have been produced by a knowledge of this doc 
trine of future judgment, of future rewards and pun- 
ishments, than existed in those ancient times, it was 
certainly needed for the moral and religious improve- 
ment of righteous Noah and Lot, the blemishes in 
whose characters might thereby have been prevented. 
But it is believed that a judicious comparison between 
the piety and virtue of these men, and the piety and 
virtue of those who are rendered religious in our times 
by the influence of this doctrine, would result neither 



60 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

to the advantage of the latter, nor to the support of 
the pretended claims of this doctrine. 

We may now take our leave of Egypt, and travel 
with God's chosen people towards the earthly Canaan, 
in hope that if any improvement is to be made in re- 
ligious and moral instruction, if the wisdom of God is 
pleased to add more severe sanctions to his law, than 
in former times, if now the time has arrived when a 
future retribution, in all the horrors in which our doc- 
tors have dressed it, is about to be manifested to his 
own chosen people, we may find it, understand it, and 
avail ourselves of its advantages. 

Let us go with Moses and the congregation of 
Israel to the fearful mount from whence the law was 
given. Surely the cloud that rests on this Sinai, that 
cloud from which such thunders roll, in which such 
lightnings blaze, must contain the whole artillery of 
retributive vengeance. We shall now learn, no doubt, 
the mind of God respectmg the demerit of sin and 
the severity of its just punishment. We can hardly 
expect to go from this mountain ignorant of those di- 
vine sanctions which will best serve the cause of piety, 
religion, and m.oral virtue. The lightnings have 
flashed ! the thunders have rolled ! God has spoken ! 
the verdict of heaven is registered ! Come, ye doc- 
tors, who insist that neither judgment nor punishment 
is in this world — and who, without hesitation, doom 
your fellow-sinners to endless wo, — come and read the 
following verdict : ' Life for life, eye for eye, tooth 
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for 
burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.' — (Exo- 
dus xxi, 23 — 25.) All this is evidently in this world, 
where life can be taken, where eyes can be destroyed, 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 61 

where teeth can be extracted, where hands and feet 
can be amputated, where burnings, wounds, and 
stripes can be inflicted. 

Will it be contended that the retributions which are 
here specified are those only which God has authorized 
men to render to their offending fellow-men ; but that 
he reserves to himself the office of inflicting retribu- 
tions infinitely more severe ? We will then bring to 
view the punishments which God told his people that 
he himself would inflict upon them for their stubborn- 
ness, and their rebellion against him and his statutes. 
And here we beseech the reader to look carefully, 
having reference to two questions ; first, Is there, in 
all the dreadful account, any intimation of punishment 
in a future state ? secondly. Is it possible to conceive 
of sufferings more severe, that can be suffered in the 
present state, than those which are here described ? 
* But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do 
all these commandments ; and if ye shall despise my 
statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that 
ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye 
break my covenant ; I also will do this unto you ; I 
will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and 
the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and 
cause sorrow of heart : and ye shall sow your seed in 
vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set 
my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your 
enemies : tiiey that hate you shall reign over you ; 
and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. And if ye 
will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will 
punish you seven times more for your sins. And I 
will break the pride of your power ; and I will make 
your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass. And 
your strength shall be spent in vain : for your land 
6 



62 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of 
the land yield their fruits. And if ye walk contrary 
unto me, and will not hearken unto me ; I will bring 
seven times more plagues upon you, according to your 
sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which 
shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, 
and make you few in number ; and your high-ways 
shall be desolate. And if ye will not be reformed by 
me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me ; 
then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will pun- 
ish you yet seven times for your sins. And I will 
bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel 
of my covenant : and, when ye are gathered together 
within your cities, I will send the pestilence among 
you ; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the 
enemy. And when I have broken the staff of your 
bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, 
and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight : 
and ye shall eat and not be satisfied. And if ye will 
not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary 
unto me ; then I will walk contrary unto you also in 
fury ; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for 
your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, 
and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And I 
will destroy your high places, and cut down your im- 
ages, and cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of 
your idols, and my soul shall abhor you. And I will 
make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries 
unto desolation, and I will not smell the savor of 
your sweet odors. And I will bring the land into 
desolation ; and your enemies which duell therein 
shall be astonished at it. And 1 will scatter you 
among the heathen^ and will draw out a sword, after 
you ; and your land shall be desolate, and your cities 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 63 

waste. Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as 
long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' 
land ; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sab« 
baths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest ; be- 
cause it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt 
upon it. And upon them that are left alive of you I 
will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of 
their enemies ; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall 
chase them ; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a 
sword ; and they shall fall when none pursueth. 
And they shall fall one upon another, as it were 
before a sword, when none pursueth ; and ye shall 
have no power to stand before your enemies. And 
ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land 
of your enemies shall eat you up. And they that are 
left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your 
enemies' lands ; and also in the iniquities of their fa- 
thers shall they pine away with them.' — (Lev. xxvi. 
14 — 39.) Will the advocates of future judgment 
and retribution carefully survey all these specifica- 
tions of punishment, and deliberately consider the in- 
tenseness of their severity, and then gravely say that 
God does neither judge nor punish the wicked in this 
world ? In the scripture just cited, God says, verse 
21 : * I will bring seven times more plagues upon you, 
according to your sins.' Will any one be bold enough, 
while this passage is in view, to assert that no punish- 
ment endured in this mortal state is according to 
men's sins ? 

However important the doctrine of future retribu- 
tion may be, however essential to promote and defend 
true piety, religion and morality, however dangerous 
it may be to the souls of men not to believe in this 
doctrine, we find we are now compelled to leave 
Moses, Sinai, and the law given to God's covenant 



64 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

people, without obtaining the least information con- 
cerning it? All the support which the wisdom of God 
saw fit to give to piety, religion and morality, by means 
of punishment, was derived from sufferings endured 
in this mortal state. It is not in this ministration of 
death and condemnation^ that we find the doctrine of 
punishment in the future state ; if we ever find it, we 
must find it in the more glorious ministration of the 
spirit of righteousness, in which Jesus, our great high 
priest, ' is the propitiation for our sins, and not for 
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.* 
But who will ever believe that the dispensation of the 
gospel exhibits punishments for sin more lasting and 
more severe than are announced in the law 1 

If we examine the divine testimony concerning the 
Judges of Israel, we shall learn that as late as was 
Jotham's curse pronounced and executed on the mur- 
derous Abimelech and the sinful Shechemites and 
house of Millo, temporal punishment is said to be a 
full retribution even for the most heinous ofiences. Of 
the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, Jotham alone escaped 
the murderous and bloody hands of Abimelech, who 
was made king by the Shechemites, who thus sup- 
ported him in his wickedness. Jotham, as soon as he 
was informed of the tragical death of his brethren, 
and that the murderer was made king, went and stood 
in the top of Mount Gerizim, and after reproving the 
Shechemites for their madness and impolicy in one of 
the best and most ingenious parables ever written, he 
pronounced the following curse : ' Let fire come out 
from Abimelech and devour the men of Shechem, and 
the house of Millo ; and let fire come out from the 
men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION* 65 

devour Abimelech.' — (Judges ix. 20.) This curse of 
Jotham was not long delayed ; it was not put off to a 
future state ; in about three years from the day Abim- 
elech was made king, ' God sent an evil spirit be- 
tween him and the men of Shechem ; and the men of 
Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimeiech ; that 
the cruelty done to the three-score and ten sons of 
Jerubbaal might come, and their blood be laid upon 
Abimeiech their brother which slew them, and upon 
the men of Shechem which aided him in the killing 
of his brethren.' — (Verses 23, 24.) This treachery 
soon kindled the flame of open war, and terminated 
in the destruction of Shechem and its inhabitants, 
and in the death of Abimeiech. ' Thus God rendered 
the wickedness of Abimeiech which he did unto his 
father, in slaying his seventy brethren. And all the 
evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon 
their heads ; and upon them came the curse of Jo- 
tham, the son of Jerubbaal.' — (Judges ix. 56, 57.) 
According to the doctrine of future retribution, 
which we now have under consideration, if God had 
rendered all the iniquity of Abimeiech on his head, 
and all the evil of the men of Shechem upon their 
heads, they must all have been condemned to endless 
sufferings, in the hell which that doctrine teaches ; 
but there is not the least intimation that in the retri- 
butions of divine justice, which were executed on 
those vile transgressors, any infliction was extended 
into the future state. It seems reasonable to ask, in 
this place, why God should inspire Jotham to an- 
nounce the curse which we have seen that God exe- 
cuted on those murderers, and yet withhold from him 
all knowledge concerning a curse which is infinitely 
more durable and indescribably more severe, if such 
6* 



66 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

were contained in the treasures of divine retribution 1 
The divines of our times, who believe and preach fu- 
ture retribution, confidently threaten people with its 
terrors, though so far from being such atrocious mur- 
derers as were Abimelech and the Shecheniites, they 
have committed no open violation of the wholesome 
laws of civil society in their lives, and are kind hus- 
bands and wives, provident fathers and mothers, duti- 
ful children, loving brothers and sisters, trusty and 
obliging neighbors and friends. How shall we ac- 
count for these excessive terrors, under the gracious 
dispensation of the gospel of man's salvation, which 
infinitely transcend all the most terrible denur^ciations 
of that law which is emphatically styled the ministra- 
tion of condemnation? 

While passing in review the records of retributive 
justice, respecting instances wherein God himself is 
accuser, judge and executioner, we are induced to 
bestow some particular attention on the fearful case of 
king Ahab. To the crime we are now about to con- 
sider Abab was but an accessory, Jezebel, his wife, 
was the principal. The specifications of the case are 
as follows: — * Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, 
which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab, 
king of Samaria. And Ahab spake unto Naboth, say- 
ing. Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a 
garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house, and 
I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if 
it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it 
in money. And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord for- 
bid it me that I should give the inheritance of my fa- 
thers unto thee. And Ahab came into his house 
heavy and dii^leased, because of the word Naboth the 
Jezreelite had spoken to him ; for he had said I will 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 67 

not give thee the inheritance of my fathers ; and he 
laid hiin down upon his bed, and turned away his 
face, and would eat no bread. But Jezebel his wife 
came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so 
sad, that thou eatest no bread ? And he said unto 
her. Because T spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and 
said unto him. Give me thy vineyard for money ; or 
else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard 
for it ; and he answered, I will not give thee my vine- 
yard. And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou 
not govern the kingdom of Israel ? Arise, and eat 
bread, and let thine heart be merry ; I will give thee 
the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. So she wrote 
letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, 
and sent the letters unto the elders, and to the nobles 
that were in the city dwelling with Naboth. And she 
wrote in the letters, saying. Proclaim a fast, and set 
Naboth on high among the people ; and set two men, 
sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, 
saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king : 
and then carry him out, and stone him, that he may 
die.' — (I Kings xxi.) These iniquitous orders were 
immediately obeyed by the elders and nobles of Jez- 
reel, who held the favors of Ahab's court in higher es- 
teem than they did that pure ^nd holy justice which 
forbids false accusation and violence ; and Naboth 
was condemned in a mock trial, under the specious 
pretence of religious zeal, and cruelly stoned by a 
lawless mob, that he died. Information was sent to 
Jezebel that Naboth was dead, when she said to Ahab, 
* Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the 
Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money ; 
for Naboth is not alive, but dead.' Well pleased with 
these tidings, the king went to take possession of the 



68 EXAMINATION OF THE BOCTRINE 

coveted vineyard. But the righteous Judge of all the 
earth sent his prophet Elijah to meet him on the very 
spot where he had fondly anticipated the enjoyment of 
a garden of herbs, and authorized him to announce to 
the ears of this murderous king the following righ- 
teous sentence : 'In the place where dogs licked the 
blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine. 
. . . Because thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the 
sight of the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, 

and will take away thy posterity And will make 

thine house like the house of Jeroboam, the son of 
Nebat, and like the house of Baasha, the son of Abi- 
jah, for the provocation wherewith thou hast provoked 
me to anger, and made Israel to sin. And of Jezebel 
spake the Lord, saying. The dogs shall eat Jezebel 
by the wall of Jezreel. Him that dieth of Ahab in 
the city the dogs shall eat ; and him that dieth in the 
field shall the fowls of the air eat.' Not far from one 
year after the murder of Naboth, and the annuncia- 
tion of the divine judgment against these royal offend- 
ers for the crime they had committed, Ahab was 
mortally wounded in a battle which he fought at Ra- 
moth in Gilead, with the King of Syria. ' So the 
King died, and was brought to Samaria ; and they 
buried the King in Samaria. And one washed the 
chariot in the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up 
his blood, and they washed his armor according unto 
the word of the Lord which he spake.' — (1 Kings 
xxii. 37, 38.) In about thirteen years after the dogs 
licked the blood of Ahab, according to the word of 
the Lord, Jezebel was eaten by dogs according to the 
same sentence ; for Jehu conspired against king Jo- 
ram, the son of Ahab, and slew him, and ordered 
Jezebel to be thrown from her window into the street, 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 69 

where she was trodden under foot by the horses of 
Jehu's troops, and eaten by dogs. When it was told 
Jehu what had become of Jezebel, he said, * This is 
the word of the Lord, which he spoke by his servant 
Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel 
shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel ; and the carcass of 
Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in 
the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall say, this is 
Jezebel.'— (2 Kings ix. 36, 37.) 

We have here set before the reader a very short ac- 
count of the wickedness of King Ahab and his wife 
Jezebel, in relation to the cruel murder of Naboth ; 
but it should be noticed that these two offenders were 
notoriously wicked in their general conduct, and that 
the sentence of divine vengeance against them was a 
judicial retribution for their offences. However hard 
it may be for our divines of the present day, who ad- 
vocate the doctrine of future retribution, and who con- 
tend that sin is not fully punished in this world where 
it is committed, to be told that the divine sentence 
whic:h we have just noticed, and which was executed 
on Ahab and his wife Jezebel, was all which the wis- 
dom of God has seen fit to have recorded for our ad- 
monition, they will search in vain to find any author]* 
ty in the Scriptures for their being punished in a fu- 
ture state. 

How widely different was the conduct of the proph- 
et Elijah, who was sent to meet Ahab, and to deliver 
to him that message from God, which unwavering jus- 
tice dictated, from the conduct of our divines, who 
preach the terrors of future retribution ! In place of 
informing the royal murderer that he had exposed his 
immortal soul to the eternal vengeance of an offended 
God, and that he was in danger of being cast into a 



70 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

lake of fire and brimstone hereafter, as a just retribution 
for his wickedness, the legate of heaven, in a manner 
as pointed and severe as it was solemn and awful, told 
him, * In the place where dogs licked the blood of 

Naboth, shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine 

The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.' 
As wide as this difference appears, it is fully equalled 
by that which exists between the terrors of the two 
doctrines. Let a clergyman, for instance, address a 
murderer with the terrors cf future damnation, and 
tell him if he does not repent before he dies, he will 
go to hell hereafter ; and, out of civility to the divine, 
he may treat him with respect, but nothing more ] but 
place this felon at the bar of justice and let him hear 
his sentence of death pronounced by the judge, and 
strange terrors will agitate his fragile frame, and death- 
ly paleness will speak the apprehensions of his heart ! 
What men can realize as matter of certainty, can 
never fail of exerting an influence on the mind, which 
will always correspond with its importance ; but mere 
imaginary terrors, however vivid may be the color in 
which they are painted, will exert an uncertain and 
doubtful influence, corresponding with their own un- 
certainty, while various means of avoiding harm will 
be sure to neutralize their whole power. 

We must not forget to consider the fact that at the 
time the divine sentence of retribution was announced 
to Ahab, more than three thousand years had passed 
away, after the creation of man, and yet it had not 
seeuied good in the sight of God to reveal to his chil- 
dren this sin-preventing, soul-saving doctrine of future 
punishment ! Who will tell us why God should withr 
hold the knowledge of a doctrine from man, which 
is now thought to be a main pillar in the temple of 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 71 

true religion, and the principal bulwark which defends 
those moral virtues that constitute the felicities of life ? 
Was not sin as hateful to God, was not righteousness 
as precious in his sight, was not the salvation of im- 
mortal souls as important, in ancient as in modern 
times ? If the future and eternal welfare of man can 
be secured only by the terrors of endless misery, why 
should that kind Creator, who gave to the ancients the 
same sun, the same moon, as constant seed-times and 
liarvests, as to us, have withheld from them these more 
needful terrors, yet deal them out on us so profusely ! 
Will not millions of poor wretched immortals, doom- 
ed to endless sufferings for going out of this world 
destitute of those preparations, which depend on a be- 
lief in the doctrine of future retribution, mingle some 
faint murmurs, at least, with their groans, that they 
were not provided with these indispensable means of 
preparation in their day ? If it be said that righteous 
Noah, Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the proph- 
ets will tell them that they were prepared for eternal 
happiness without any knowledge of this doctrine of 
future retribution, it will amount to a full concession 
that a belief in this doctrine is not absolutely necessa- 
ry to such desirable preparation. 

As it is contended that God has not seen fit to judge 
and reward men in this world, according to their 
works : but has appointed to judge them after death, 
and to punish them for their wickedness in the future, 
eternal state, we will, with this opinion, contrast the 
divine testimony recorded by Ezekiel : * And thou, son 
of man, prophesy, and say, Thus saith the Lord God, 
coacerning the Ammonites, and concerning their re- 
proach ; even say thou, The sword, the sword is 



72 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

drawn ; for the slaughter it is furbished shall 

I cause it to return into his sheath 1 I will judge thee 
in the place where thou wast created, in the land of thy 
nativity. And I will pour out mine indignation upon 
thee ; I will blow against thee in the fire of my wrath, 
and deliver thee into the hands of brutish men, and 
skilful to destroy. Thou shalt be for fuel to the fire; 
thy blood shall be in the midst of the land ; thou shalt 
be no more remembered ; for I the Lord have spoken 
it/ — Ezekiel xxi. 28, &/C.) We have here the Di- 
vine testimony that God would judge the wicked Am- 
monites in the place where they were created; that their 
punishment should be in their land, and should be ex- 
ecuted by brutish men, who should be skilful to de- 
stroy. The Ammonites were not created in a future 
state, nor was the land of their nativity in a future 
state, nor will any one pretend that God will deliver 
the Ammonites into the hands of brutish men, in a 
future state, to be there destroyed by them. Yet all 
this punishment is said to be executed in God's wrath, 
and in the fire of his indignation. If it was consist- 
ent with the moral government of the Ruler of the 
universe to judge and punish the idolatrous Ammon- 
ites in this world, and in their own land, it is difficult 
to see why it is not equally consistent with this Divine 
government to judge all nations, and every individual 
of the hu iian family, and to recompense them accord- 
ing to their deseits, in this present state. 

After stating, in the foregoing explicit manner, the 
judgment of the Ammonites, the prophet, in the next 
chapter, as explicitly states the execution of the di- 
vine indignation against God's covenant people ; and 
he lays the scene in the city of Jerusalem. After hav- 
ing set forth, in a long catalogue of specifications, the 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 73 

crimes and abominations of the house of Israel, he 
thus proceeds : * And the word of the Lord came un- 
to me, saying, Son of man, the house of Israel is to 
me become dross ; all ihey are brass, and tin, and iron, 
and lead in the midst of the furnace : they are even the 
dross of silver. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, 
Because ye are all become dross, behold, therefore, I 
will gather you iiito the midst of Jerusalem. As they 
gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, 
into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, 
to melt it : so will I gather you in mine anger, and in 
my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. 
Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire 
of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the fire of my 
wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof As 
silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall 
ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know 
that I the Lord have poured out my fury upon you/ 
— (Ezekiel xxii. 17, &lc.) 

It is worthy of notice that the prophet is as particu- 
lar here in stating the place where the house of Israel 
should suffer the execution of the divine wrath, as he 
was in stating the plaCe \Ahere the Amm.onites should 
suffer it. The Ammonites were to suffer for their in- 
iquities, in their own land; and the house of Israel 
were to suffer their punishment in Jerusalem. 

To us an important query here arises : As it is con- 
tended by our divines, that all the sufferings which 
men endure in this world, are nothing in comparison 
with the punishment which they are taught to expect 
in the future state, why are the former so particularly- 
set forth, and the places where they were to be endur- 
ed designated, so that no mistake can be made ; and 
yet are we not favored with any description of the lat- 
7 



74 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

ter ? If in any part of the divine writings we could 
find as particular a description of a future state of pun- 
ishment, as we have seen of the punishment of those 
whom we have passed in review in this inquiry, there 
would exist no doubt concerning it. But neither Mo- 
ses nor any of the prophets ever attempted to give any 
relation concerning this future retribution, which now 
constitutes one of the principal pillars of religion^ 
and an indispensable article in the Christian faith. 

In his description of the siege and destruction of 
Jerusalem, Jeremiah compares the punishment of the 
sin of the daughter of his people with the punishment 
of the sin of Sodom, and says that the former was 
greater than the latter. Let the reader carefully con- 
sult the following most eloquent description : ' How 
is the gold become dim ! how is the most fine gold 
changed ! the stones of the sanctuary are poured 
out in the top of every street. The precious sons 
of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they es- 
teemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands 
of the potter ! Even the sea-monsters draw out the 
breast, they give suck to their young ones : the daugh- 
ter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in 
the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleav- 
eth to the roof of his mouth for thirst : the young 
children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. 
They that did feed delicately are desolate in the 
streets : they that were brought up in scarlet, embrace 
dunghills. For the punishment of the iniquity of the 
daughter of my people is greater than the punishment 
of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a mo- 
menl, and no hands stayed on her. Her Nazarites 
were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, 
they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their pol- 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 75 

ishing was of sapphire : their visage is blacker than a 
coal ; they are not known in the streets : their skin 
cleaveth to their bones ; it is withered, it is become 
like a stick. They that be slain with the sword are 
better than they that be slain with hunger : for these 
pine away stricken through for want of the fruits of 
the field. The hands of. the pitiful women have sod- 
den their own children ; they were their meat in the 
destruction of the daughter of my people. The Lord 
hath accomplished his fury ; he hath poured out his 
fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it 
hath devoured the foundations thereof The kings of 
the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would 
not have believed that the adversary and the enemy 
should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.' — 
(Lam. iv. 1 — 12.) Although language and the tongue 
of the most eloquent would fail in the attempt to set 
forth the suffering of mortals to a greater degree than 
is here described, yet there is no intimation, in this 
description, of punishment in a future state. The 
prophet assures us that these sufferings were in Jerusa- 
lem and in Zion, and that they were the accomplish- 
ment of the fierce anger and the fury of the Lord. If 
we carefully consider the language we have quoted 
from Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in which they set forth 
the awful retributions of divine justice, all which they 
confined to this life and this mortal state, it will at 
once occur to our recollection that there are no ex- 
pressions used in any part of the sacred writings, 
which indicate terrors more fearful, or sufferings more 
intense. 

Should preachers of our times, who profess to be- 
lieve that the prophets of Israel, whose testimony we 
have just considered, were inspired by the Divine Spirit 



76 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

to announce the retributions of justice against the 
transgressors of their times, follow iheir example, and, 
confining all the punishments which they should hold 
up to the people, to the present state, exert all their 
wisdom and discernment to understand the effects of 
wickedness of all descriptions, and to set them forth 
in their true colors, they would certainly be a very dif- 
ferent kind of preachers from what they now are ; and, 
we believe, a much more profitable kind of preachers. 
But what would our Cliristian congregations think, 
should they, in place of hearing from the pulpits the 
usual and fashionable denunciations of eternal punish- 
ment in the invisible world, for the follies and crimes 
of this life, hear the natural and necessary tenden- 
cy of every species of wrong-doing clearly pointed 
out, and enforced with all the powers of that elo- 
quence which is employed in the usual way, but not a 
word about a future state of punishment? Should 
such a change take place, if violent excitements should 
be discontinued, if religious fanaticism should cease 
to produce its frequent paroxysms, and if none were 
made mad with the fears of everlasting torment, it is 
confidently believed that vice would be more detested 
than it now^ is, and that virtue would have more sin- 
cere admirers. 

Notwithstanding these remarks are already protracted 
beyond what was at first contemplated, we are unwil- 
ling to bring them to a close without noticing how ex- 
actly the preaching of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the 
world, corresponded with the testimony of the proph- 
ets which we have considered. 

When the divine teacher denounced the judgments 
of heaven on the most perverse and abominable peo- 
ple that ever our world produced, the dark, portentous 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 77 

cloud of vengeance, which had been gathering for 
ages, had then acquired such a density as to hang vis- 
ibly over the land. He saw the cloud, and wept over 
Jerusalem, knowing that her fearful destruction drew 
nigh. Accordingly he limited all his dreadful denun- 
ciations to the generation in which he lived. The 
following are some t)f his declarations on this subject : 
' Then said Jesus unto his disciples. If any man will 
come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his 
cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his 
life, shall lose it : and whosoever will lose his life for 
my sake, shall find it. For what is a man profited, if 
he shall gain the whole worM, and lose his own soul ? 
or, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ? 
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his 
Father, with his angels ; and then he shall reward ev- 
ery man according to his works. Verily I say unto 
you. There be some standing here, which shall not 
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in 
his kingdom.' — (Matt. xvi. 24—28.) 'Fill ye up 
then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye 
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation 
of hell ? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you proph- 
ets, and wise men, and scribes ; and some of them ye 
shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye 
scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from 
city to city ; that upon you may come all the righteous 
blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous 
Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, 
whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Veri- 
ly I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this 
generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kill- 
est the prophets, and stonest them which are sent un- 
to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children 
7* 



78 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

together, even as a hen gatherelh her chickens under 
her wings, and ye would not ! Behold, your house is 
left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall 
not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he 
that Cometh in the name of the Lord/ — (Matt, xxiii. 
32 — 39. * Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of 
me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful 
generation ; of him also shall the Son of man be 
ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father 
with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily 
I say unto you, that tiiere be some of them that stand 
here which shall not taste of death, till they have seen 
the kingdon of God come with power.' — (Mark viii. 
37 ; ix. 1.) ' For whosoever shall be ashamed of me^ 
and of my w^ords, of him shall the Son of man be 
ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in 
his Father's, and of the holy angels. But I tell you 
of a truth, there be some standing here which shall 
not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.' 
— (Luke ix. 26, 27.) ^ And when ye shall see Je- 
rusalem compassed with armies, then know that the 
desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are 
in Judea flee to the mountains ; and let them which 
are in the midst of it depart out ; and let not them 
that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these 
be the days of vengeance, that all things which are 
written may be fulfilled. But wo unto them that are 
with child, and to them that give suck in those days ! 
for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath 
upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of 
the sword, and shall be led away captive into all na- 
tions ; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the 
Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon 
and in the stars ; and upon the earth distress of na- 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 79 

tions, with perplexity ; the sea and the waves roaring ; 
men's hearts failing them for fear, and looking after 
those things which are coming on the earth ; for the 
powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall 
they see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with pow- 
er and great glory. And when these things begin to 
come to pass, then lookup, and lift up your heads; 
for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to 
them a parable : Behold the fig-tree and all the trees ; 
when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your 
ownseives that summer is now nigh at hand. So like- 
wise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know 
ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I 
say unto you. This generation shall not pass away, till 
all be fulfilled.'— (Luke xxi. 20—32.) ' Immediately 
after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be 
darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and 
the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the 
heaven shall be shaken ; and then shall appear the 
sign of the Son of man in heaven ; and then shall all 
the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son 
of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power 
and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a 
great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather to- 
gether his elect from the four winds, from one end of 
heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig- 
tree : When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth 
leaves, ye know the summer is nigh ; so likewise ye, 
when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, 
even at the doors. Verily I say unto you. This gen- 
eration shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.' 
— (Matt. xxiv. 29—34.) 

If Jesus, like modern preachers, had believed that 
in this state of being, God neither judged nor reward- 



80 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

ed men according to their works ; but that in a future 
state he hath appointed a general judgment, and will 
in eternity punish, with unspeakable severity, those 
who do wickedly in this world, would he have been so 
very particular to limit all the denunciations of divine 
wrath, which ho announced to his enemies, to the gen- 
eration in which he lived ? Had Jesus been of the 
opinion that a belief in this future and eternal retribu- 
tion, was indispensable to the cause of true piety, re- 
ligion and morality, would he not have preached as 
our divines now do, and brought that hell, in which 
our preachers believe, and which they constantly hold 
up to the people, directly before the eyes of the multi- 
tudes who attended on his preaching ? If it be said 
that Jesus did threaten the wicked with hell fire, we 
say that we have no proof that he ever used any word 
by which he meant to express what our preachers mean 
by the word hell. 

By those, in our times, who endeavor to maintain 
that where Jesus used the phrase, * A gehenna of 
fire,' rendered by our translators, * hell fire,' — (Matt. 
V. 22,) he meant to designate a place of torment in 
the future state, it is argued that this must have been 
his meaning, because he knew that the Jews, to whom 
he spoke, were in the habit of using the same phrase 
for this purpose. To this reasoning we state the fol- 
lowing objections : 1st, To support the fact, on which 
they rest this argument, they have never been able to 
produce any thing like undoubted authority. And 
why they should feel satisfied to rest a doctrine of 
such immense importance on authority, which, at any 
rate, must be considered doubtful, is very questionable. 
It is by no means certain that the Jews, in our Sa- 



OF FUTURE KETKIBUTION. 81 

viour's time, were in the habit of using the word 
Gehenna to signify a place of future misery. 

2(j, If we look at the passage where this word is 
found, and examine it with suitable candor, it is be- 
lieved that we shall be fully satisfied that Jesus did 
not mean to speak of a state of torment in the future 
world. See verses 21, 22 : * Ye have heard that 
it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill ; 
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the 
judgment ; but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry 
with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of 
the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to his brother, 
Raca, shall be in danger of the council ; but whoso- 
ever shall say. Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell 
fire/ Now, no candid person will pretend that Jesus 
meant to designate a future state of punishment by 
being in danger either of the judgment, or of the 
council. But if by these he did not mean to point 
out a future state of sufferings, but alluded to temporal 
sufferings only, it must appear strangely extravagant 
to suppose that by the last he meant a state of suffer- 
ings in the fiiture world. The first crime is that of 
being angry with a brother without a cause ; the sec- 
ond is that of saying to a brother, Raca ; the third 
is that of calling a brother a fool. Will any candid 
person pretend that there is such an infinite differ- 
ence between the two first of these offences, and the 
last, that temporal punishments were suitable to be 
inflicted for the two first, but that nothing short of the 
torments of that hell, in which our clergy believe, are 
suitable to the last 1 Such a conclusion, we think, 
but a few candid minds, after deliberate considera- 
tion j will adopt. 



82 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

Dr. Adam Clarke, a believer ia future punishment, 
is candid enough to allow that the passage under con- 
sideration had no allusion to sufferings out of this 
world. On the text he says, — 'It is very probable, 
that our Lord means no more here than this : If a 
man charge another with apostacy from the Jewish 
religion, or rebellion against God, and cannot prove 
his charge, then he is exposed to that punishment, 
(burning alive) which the other must have suffered if 
the charge had been substantiated. There are three 
kinds of offences here, w^hich exceed each other in 
their degrees of guilt. 1, Anger against a man, ac- 
companied with some injurious act. 2, Contempt, 
expressed by the opprobrious epithet, Raca, or shal- 
low brains. 3, Hatred and mortal enmity, expressed 
by the term moreli, or apostate, when such apostacy 
could not be proved. Now, proportioned to these 
three offences, were three different degrees of punish- 
ment, each exceeding the other in severity, as the of- 
fences exceeded each other in their different degrees 
of guilt. 1, The Judgment, the Council of twenty- 
three, which could inflict the punishment of strang- 
ling. 2, Thp, Sanhprlrim, or Great Council, which 
could inflict the punishment of stoning. 3, The 
being burnt alive in the valley of the Son of Hinnora. 
This appears to be the meaning of our Lord.' 

The learned Parkhurst says, in his Greek and Eng- 
lish Lexicon, on the phrase geenna tou pur as, a ge- 
henna of fire, — ^ (Matt. v. 22,) does, I apprehend, in 
its outward and primary sense, relate to that dreadful 
doom of being burnt alive in the valley of HinnomJ 
This lexicographer also was a believer in future pun- 
ishment. We quote these authors, whose biblical 
learning is highly esteemed, by the clergy of all de- 






OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 83 

nominations, not because we think them always cor- 
rect in their opinions, but because, as they were be- 
lievers in a future state of punishment, they would 
not have applied the text under consideration, to any 
punishment endured in this world, if they could have 
been justified in applying it to the hell, in the future 
world, in which they believed. 

Mr. Whitman, in what he entitles, 'Friendly Letters 
to a Universalist, recently published, contends, with 
much more spirit than humility, on p. 170, that Jesus 
was either a fool, or a liar, if he made use of the 
phrase ' A gehenna of fire,^ to signify punishment in 
the valley of Hinnom ! To us, it seems somewhat 
remarkable, that he should have inserted the word 
fool, as that is the very word, in the text, which he 
contends places him who uses it in danger of the fu- 
ture punishment for which he contends. This re- 
minds us of the words of the Saviour to his disciples, 
* Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of For 
humanity's sake, and for his sake, and for mercy's 
sake, we hope his doctrine is not true. But we have 
but little doubt that he endures the very anguish of 
soul^ which we believe Jesus meant to represent, sym- 
bolically, by the phrase ' A Gehenna of fire' This 
agrees with our views of the use of Gehenna by 
James, Ch. iii. 6 : ' And the tongue is a fire, 
a world of iniquity : so is the tongue among our mem- 
bers, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire 
the course of nature ; and it is set on fire of Gehenna.* 
Mr. Whitman allows on p. 172, that Jesus some- 
times used the word Gehenna to signify spiritual pun- 
ishment in this world. But seems not to realize that 
by this concession he put it out of his power to prove 
that he ever used it to designate a punishment in the 



84 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

future state. Nor does he prove that spiritual punish- 
ment, in this world, was not meant, by the Saviour, 
in the passage we have noticed. 

By an attentive perusal of the argument of the Sa- 
viour, in Matt, v., in which this passage is found, we 
are satisfied that the divine teacher designed to inform 
his disciples, that in the spiritual government of the 
kingdom of heaven, here on earth, cognizance would 
be taken of crimes, which should consist in the wick- 
edness of the heart, though no overt act were commit- 
ted ; and that he made use of legal punishments sym- 
bolically, to indicate the mental sufferings to which 
the sinfulness of the heart would subject men. And 
we believe that whoever will candidly examine Matt. v. 
from the 17th verse to the 30th, inclusive, will be of 
our ooinion. * The word of God is quick and power- 
ful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing 
even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of 
the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the 
thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there 
any creature that is not manifest in his sight ; but all 
things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with 
whom we have to do.' — (Ileb. iv. 12, 13.) 

It ought to be kept in mind, that when Jesus used 
the phrase, 'A gehenna of fire,' in the ])assage in Matt. 
V. 22, and several times more in the same discourse, 
he was speaking, not to the Scribes and Pharisees, nor 
to the Jews, as a people, but to his disciples; and that 
he was giving them spiritual instruction, which related 
to his own kingdom of divine righteousness. To be 
satisfied of this fact, the reader may commence with 
the chapter, and its truth will at once appear. In the 
fore part of this chapter, Jesus taught his disciples the 
character of that righteousness which is indispensable 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 85 

in his gospel kingdom, or kingdom of heaven. He 
gave them to understand that unless their righteous- 
ness should exceed the righteousness of the Scribes 
and Pharisees, they could not enter into the kingdom 
of heaven. The righteousness of the Scribes and 
Pharisees consisted in a very scrupulous observance 
of the rites and outward duties of the law of Moses 
and the priesthood of Aaron ; but Jesus informed 
them that they had omitted the weightier matters of 
the law, such as judgment, mercy and faith. These 
weightier matters were required by Jesus of his disci- 
ples, and constituted that righteousness which was re- 
quired in his spiritual kingdom ; in which kingdom 
his apostles were constituted kings and priests unto 
God. In this spiritual kingdom or government, there 
must be a spiritual discipline that would take cogni- 
zance of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and 
faithfully administer to every man a righteous retribu- 
tion. The judgment seat of Christ is in the heart of 
every christian. Before this tribunal all his thoughts 
are laid open. If he allows himself to be angry with 
a brother, contrary to the law of Christ, he feels a cor- 
responding condemnation ; if he utter a word to his 
brother which is a violation of this spirit of love, a 
corresponding retribution is inevitable. To express 
these retributions, we think Jesus made use of tempo- 
ral punishments symbolically. 

The kingdom of God, or the gospel of Christ, was 
set up in our world to enlighten it ; it is therefore the 
light of the world ; and the more this light advances, 
the more it will reprove of sin, overcome it, and save 
men from it. Men, destitute of the knowledge of the 
gospel, can justify themselves, while rendering evil for 
evil : but the law of Christ condemns the practice, 
8 



86 EXAMINATION OP THE DOCTRINE 

But when Jesus spoke of the damnation of Gehenna, 
in Matt, xxiii. 33, he was addressing the Scribes and 
the Pharisees in their temple, accusing them of their 
hypocrisy and wickedness, and said : Ye, serpents, 
ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the dam- 
nation of Gehenna ? ' And he proceeds immediately 
to show them what he meant by this damnation, and 
when it would come upon them ; for he adds : * Where- 
fore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, 
and scribes ; and some of them shall ye kill and cru* 
cify J- and some of them shall ye scourge in your syna- 
gogues, and persecute them from city to city ; that 
upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon 
the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the 
blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew 
between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto 
you, all these things shall come upon this generation.' 
That Jesus here spoke of the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem by the Romans, is fully and clearly seen, by duly 
noticing the fact, that when he had finished his ad- 
dress to the Scribes and Pharisees, in the temple, he 
went out, and his disciples followed him privately to 
the Mount of Olives, where they asked him when 
those things should take place : to which he replied, in 
a particular description of the time of trouble when 
Jerusalem should be destroyed, and informed them 
that that generation should not pass away, until the 
w^hole should be accomplished. By the whole con- 
nexion, it evidently appears, that when Jesus de- 
nounced on his wicked enemies, who he knew would 
put him to death, and persecute his disciples, the dam- 
nation of Gehenna, he gave them to understand, that 
the woful judgments, of which their prophets had 
warned them, would soon be executed. 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 87 

Cruden says that some suppose that ' the name of 
Topliet is given to the valley of Hinnom, because of 
the sacrifices that were offered there to the god Mo- 
iech, by beat of drum, which in Hebrew is called 
Toph.' We meet with this word applied to this val- 
ley, which is Gehenna, as written in Greek, 2 Kings, 
xxiii, 10 : * And he defiled Tophet, which is in the 
valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man mighit 
make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire 
to Molech.' Also, Isaiah xxx. 33 : ' Tophet is or- 
dained of old ; y^a, for the king it is prepared ; he 
hath made it deep and large ; the pile thereof is fire 
and much wood ; the breath of the Lord, like a stream 
of brimstone, doth kindle it.' Buch is the prophet's 
figurative language, when speaking of the destruction 
of the Assyrian army. Again ; Jeremiah vii. 31, 32 : 
^ And they have built the high places of Tophet, which 
is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their 
sons and their daughters in the fire ; which I com- 
manded them not, neither came it into mine heart. 
Therjefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that 
it shall no more be called Tophet, nor. The valley of 
the son of Hinnom, but. The valley of slaughter : for 
they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place.' See 
also the whole of Ch. xix, in which we find a most 
awful description of the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
in which the Lord says, verse 12 ; ' Thus will I do unto 
this place, saith the Lord, and to the inhabitants 
thereof, and even make this city as Tophet.' Here 
we have a most clear description of the damnation of 
Tophet, or of the valley of the son of Hinnom, or of 
Gehenna, for these several words mean the same 
thing. Now it appears to us, after giving the subject 
as much attention, as the most patient investigation 



88 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

could bestow, that the supposition, that Jesus meant 
that the Scribes and Pharisees should understand him 
to be speaking of a damnation, when he spoke of the 
damnation of Gehenna, of which, none of their proph- 
ets ever spoke, does no small violence to the sacred 
writings, and is but a small recom.mendation of the 
discernment of those who would support it. To us, it 
is a warning specimen of the iron bondage, in which 
tradition has bound the human mind, and strangely 
hampered the brightest intellects. It seems that these 
erring brethren have given up the high places demol- 
ished by king Josiah, and built new ones in a Tophet, 
which they have located in a future state, where their 
Molech is to receive their sons and their daughters, 
in his bosom of fire 1 The making of shrines to this 
idol has long been a source of much gain, and the 
craftsmen in the employ are as careful of his magnifi- 
cence and repute, as Demetrius was of the fame of 
Diana, of the Ephesians. But they seem to be blind 
to the immense sufferings; which they inflict on thou- 
sands of innocent beings, by tlriving them into gloom 
^nd madness, with th^ terrors of their doctrine. 

If in the passages, which have been noticed, where 
the Saviour used the word Gehenna, no allusion to a 
future state of punishment can be discovered, even 
those who believe that such doctrine is taught in the 
Scriptures, will feel no confidence in using any other 
passage, where the same word occurs, m support of 
such punishment. We shall, therefore, submit our 
remarks^ on the word Gehenna, as a sample of our 
views of the use of this word, in all the passages, in 
which it is found, in the New Testament. 

As Jesus, in the instructions which he gave to his 
disciples, was quite particular in giving them to un-- 



( 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 89 

derstand, that his coming to render unto his friends 
and his enemies according to their works, would take 
place in the generation in which he lived, and while 
isome of them should remain alive on the earth, it is 
worthy of special notice that he gave them no infor- 
mation that he should ever come for such a purpose 
in any later age or period of time. Corresponding 
with this important fact, we find, in the writings of his 
apostles, that whenever they spoke of the coming of 
their divine master, they spoke of it as an event im» 
mediately to take place. Peter and John were doubt- 
less present when Jesus spoke to his disciples on this 
subject; and it is evident enough from certain ex- 
pressions we find in their writings, that they remem- 
bered his sayings. Among the important signs, which 
he charged his disciples duly to regard, Jesus more 
than once mentioned the coming o^ false christs^ who 
should deceive many. See Matt. xxiv. 5 : ' For many 
shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ ; and 
shall deceive many.' Verse 24: ^ For there shall 
arise false christs, and false prophets, and shall show 
great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were 
possible, they shall deceive the very elect.' Compare 
this with 1 John ii. 18 : ' Little children, it is the 
last time ; and as ye have heard that antichrist shall 
come ; even now are there many antichrists ; whereby 
we know that it is the last time.' It is not probable 
that this epistle was written more than one or two 
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, by the Ro- 
mans. The time had then come for the special signs, 
of which Jesus spoke, to appear. They did then ap- 
pear; and this disciple thereby knew the last time, by 
which is meant the end of the world, of which Jesus 
spoke in Matt, xxiv., was at hand. In his warnings 



90 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

to his disciples, Jesus charged them to be watchful. 
See verses 42 — 44 : ' Watch, therefore ; for ye know 
not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, 
that if the good man of the house had known in what 
watch the thief would come, he would have watched^ 
and would not have suffered his house to be broken 
up. Therefore, be ye also ready ; for in such an 
hour as ye think not, the son of man cometh.' Com- 
pare this with 2 Peter iii. 10 : ' But the day of the 
Lord will come as a thief in the night.' As Peter 
wrote this epistle eight or nine years before John 
wrote, as before quoted, he does not affirm that the 
time, called the last time, had actually come. The 
signs, of which the divine master spoke to his disci- 
pies, were not so visible when Peter wrote, as they 
were when John spoke of many antichrists. On this 
particular, see the Apostle Paul, 1 Thess. v. 1 — 6 ; 
^ But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have 
no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know 
perfectly, that the day of the Lord so cometh as a 
thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace 
and safety ; then sudden destruction cometh upon 
them, as travail upon a woman with child ; and they 
shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in dark- 
ness, that that day should overtake you as a thief Ye 
are all the children of the light, and the children of 
the day ; we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 
Therefore, let us not sleep, as do others ; but let us 
watch and be sober.' This epistle was v/ritten some 
few years before that of St. Peter, from which we have 
quoted. Though St. Paul was not present with the 
disciples, when the divine master gave them the warn- 
ings of which we have spoken, he, as well as all the 
christian converts, had had ample opportunities to 



Of FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 91 

learn these things from those who had heard them 
from the lips of Jesus. The least attention to the 
words of the Apostle Paul above quoted, will discover 
that the writer expected that the day of the Lord, of 
which he spoke, would come as a thief, in the life-time 
of those to whom his epistle was directed. 

In accordance with the fact that the judgments of 
which Christ and his apostles spoke, were all accom- 
plished near the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
we find the testimony recorded in the book of Reve- 
lation. See ch. i. 1 : ' The revelation of Jesus 
Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his 
servants things which must shortly come to pass.' 
Verse 3: 'Blessed is he that readeth, and they 
that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those 
things which are written therein ; for the time is at 
hand.' Ch. iii. 2 : * Behold, I come quickly ; hold that 
fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.' 
Ch. xxii. 7 : ' Behold, I come quickly ; blessed is he that 
keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.' 
Verse 10 : * And he saith unto me. Seal not the 
sayings of the prophecy of this book ; for the time is 
at hand.' Verse 12 : ' And behold, I come quick- 
ly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man ac- 
cording as his work shall be.' — (Com. Matt. xvi. 27, 
28.) Verse 20 : ' He which testifieth these things saith, 
surely I come quickly ; Amen, Even so, come, Lord 
Jesus.' 

It may serve to confirm, what we are here endeav- 
oring to establish, to compare the direction given 
(Rev. xxii. 10,) with certain directions which were giv- 
en to the prophet Daniel. In Dan. viii. 26, it was said 
to the prophet; * And the vision of the evening and 
the morning which was told is true ; wherefore shut 



92 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

thou up the vision ; for it shall be for many days.* 
Also — xii. 4 : * But thou, O Daniel, shut up the 
words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.' 
Verse 9 : ' And he said, Go thy way, Daniel ; for 
the words are closed up and sealed till the time of 
the end.' In the last verse of the chapter the prophet 
was told that he should rest, and stand in his lot at the 
end of the days. The reader will learn by these pas- 
sages, that the reason vvhy Daniel's prophecy was 
sealed up, was because it related to events that would 
not take place for ^ many days.' With this fact let it 
be noticed that when Jesus spoke of the destruction 
of Jerusalem, as recorded Matt, xxiv, he referred to 
this prophecy of Daniel ; and gave his disciples to an- 
derstand that they might live to see it fulfilled. Here 
then let it be noticed, that Daniel prophesied but about 
six hundred years before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Let these circumstances and facts be compared with 
the direction given in Rev. xxii. 10 : ' And he saith 
unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this 
book ; for the time is at hand.' By bringing these 
scriptures together, we see that Daniel was in his lot 
when his prophecy was fulfilled ; and that this was 
when Jerusalem was destroyed. We also learn the 
impropriety of supposing, that the coming of Christ, 
to render to every man according to his works, of 
which we read in the last chapter of the Revelations, 
is yet future. If Daniel's prophecy was sealed up, 
because the events were six hundred years distant ; 
and if the prophecy in Revelations was not allowed to 
be sealed, because the time of its fulfilment was at 
hand, is it reasonable to suppose it is yet future, after 
nearly eighteen hundred years have passed away t 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 93 

Having thus shown that no judgments were de- 
nounced on the wicked, either by Jesus or his apos- 
tles, that were not confined to the generation in which 
they lived, we are naturally led to inquire, why these 
divinely inspired teachers omitted the denunciation of 
retribution in the future state, if such be indispensable 
for the support of the religion which they taught, and 
the virtues which they recommended ? Did neither 
Jesus nor his apostles understand the laws of the hu- 
man mind so as to know, that unless rewards and pun- 
ishments in the future world, were constantly enforced 
on the minds of men, they would never be truly pious 
or morally virtuous 1 How came it to pass that our 
revival preachers should now understand these impor- 
tant things better than those to whom we look as tq 
teachers sent of God 1 

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, record- 
ed in Luke 16th, last paragraph, is thought, by divines 
in general, to be ample, and even positive proof of a 
future state of torment. Most christian people have 
been in the habit of so understanding this portion of our 
Saviour's instructions ; and when we consider the force 
of education, and the proneness of the human mind to 
follow the beaten path of tradition, we are not at all 
surprised that thousands of people, for centuries, have 
given their full assent to such a use of this scripture. 
But we must acknowledge, that it is not a little to be 
wondered at, that so many learned critics, as have 
written commentaries on the scriptures, should have 
overlooked the true application of this parable. As 
we have, many years since, published our reasons for 
dissenting from the commonly received opinion con- 
oerning this scripture, and also given our views of its 



94 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

true meaning ; and as these views are now generally 
known, among those who have rescinded the doctrine 
of a future state of punishment, we propose to do lit- 
tle more, in this place, than to present the reader, with 
what we may call the key which unlocks the mystery 
of the parable. 

But the reader may possibly ask, by what authority 
we call this scripture a parable. By answering this 
query, it seems probable we may assist the reader the 
more easily to comprehend the whole subject. Let us 
ask what good reason we have to believe the following 
scripture to be a parable ? Judges ix. 8 — 15 : ' The 
trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them ; 
and they said unto the olive-tree, reign thou over us. 
But the olive-tree said unto them. Should I leave my 
fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, 
and go to be promoted over the trees ? And the trees 
said unto the fig-tree, come thou, and reign over us. 
But the fig-tree said unto them, Should I forsake my 
sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted 
over the trees ? Then said the trees unto the vine, 
come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said un- 
to them. Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God 
and man, and go to be promoted over the^trees 1 Then 
said all the trees unto the bramble, come thou, and 
reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, 
If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and 
put your trust in my shadow ; and if not, let fire come 
out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Leba- 
non.' In answer to our question respecting this pas- 
sage, the reader replies : We have two ample reasons 
for saying that this passage is a parable. 1st, Trees 
are not only destitute of the power of speech, but are 
even inanimate ; and therefore never wanted a king 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 95 

to rule over them, nor ever spoke to the olive-tree, to 
the fig-tree, to the vine, or the bramble on such a sub- 
ject. And 2d, The connexion in which this passage 
is found, shows clearly, that Jotham, who delivered it, 
used the trees to represent the Shechemites, who 
anointed Abimelech king over them ; and the bram- 
ble to represent Abimelech. All will allow that these 
are good reasons for believing that the scripture above 
quoted is a parable. 

Now we conceive that w^e have two reasons for call- 
ing this scripture, concerning the Rich Man and Laz- 
arus, a parable, which are not only similar to those 
above offered, for calling the words of Jotham, a par- 
able, but equally applicable. In the first place, it is 
just as well known, that a dead man can neither see 
nor speak, as it is that trees never talk. But it may 
be said, that it was in hell that the rich man lifted up 
his eyes and saw Abraham afar off. True, but this 
liell is the same as that of which Jacob spake, when he 
said, — (Gen. xxxvii, 33.) ' I will go down into the 
grave (hades) unto my son, mourning.' Does any body 
believe that Jacob thought that his son had gone to 
such a hell as christian people believe the wicked will 
be tormented in hereafter, and that he himself was go- 
ing there too 1 Job says, * Oh that thou wouldst hide 
me in the grave, (hades) that thoU wouldst keep me 
secret, until thy wrath be passed, that thou wouldst 
appoint me a set time, and remember me ! ' — (Ch. xiv. 
13.) The reader is requested to keep in mind that it 
is said that the rich man lifted up his eyes in hades, 
being in torment. But this hades is the place in which 
Job desired that God would hide him, until his wrath 
was passed. Could one of our preachers, who are in 
the habit of working on the fears of the people by the 



96 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

tise of the word hell, in any way more surprise a con- 
gregation tlian by uttering, publicly, Job's prayer, 
above cited 1 What would the people now think, 
should they hear such U preacher say, in prayer to 
tjfod, *Oh that thou wouldest hide me in hell, that thou 
wouldest keep me secret until thy wrath be past? It 
is in hell that God's wrath is endured to the greatest 
possible degree, according to the doctrine of the preach- 
ers of whom we speak : but it is clear enough that 
Job thought if he could be hid in hades he would be 
secure from the wrath to w^hich he was exposed while 
in this mortal life. Did Job expect that he should go 
to hades ? Yes : for he says, — (See ch. xvii. 13, 14.) 
* If I wait, the grave (hades) is mine house : I have 
made my bed in darkness. I have said to corruption. 
Thou art my father ; to the worm. Thou art my mo- 
ther, and my sister.' How does Job describe his ex- 
pected, and wished for condition in hades ? — (See 
ch. iii. 17—19.) 'There the wicked cease from troub- 
ling; and there the weary be at rest. There the pris- 
oners rest together ; they hear not the voice of their 
oppressor. The small and great are there ; and the 
servant is free from his master.' 

The reader will deem the fact important, in our in- 
quiry, that the w ox ^ hades is no where used in the Old 
Testament, to signify a place of suffering. In the He- 
brew, the word rendered ^ravc, in the above quotations 
is Sheoly which in many other places is rendered hell. 
In the Greek, the word is hades, both in the pas- 
sage in Genesis, above quoted, and in this para- 
ble of the Rich Man and Lazarus ; and there is no 
reason why the word should not have been rendered 
grave in the last as well as in the other. But if our 
translators had rendered the word hades, grave, in this 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 97 

parable, no one would ever have believed that it was 
any thing but a parable. Wakefield says, treating on 
this parable, ' It must be remembered, that hades no- 
where means hell in any author whatsoever, sacred or 
profane ; and also, that our Lord is giving his hearers 
a parable.' Dr. Campbell, speaking of hades, says, 
* In my judgment, it ought never in scripture to be 
rendered /^cZ/, at least in the sense wherein that word 
is now universally understood by Christians.' 

Dr. Clarke says, ' The word hell, used in the com- 
mon translation, conveys noio an improper meaning of 
the original word ; because hell is only used to signify 
the place of the damned. But as the word hell comes 
from the Anglo-Saxon helan, to cover, or hide, hence 
the tiling or slating of a house is called, in some parts 
of England, (particularly Cornwall,) heling, to this 
day ; and the covers of hooks, (in Lancashire) by the 
same name, so the literal import of the original word 
hades was formerly well expressed by it. 

If we allow the literality of the account of the rich 
man afier he died, and do not allow that it is a 
parable we make out that after the rich man literal- 
ly died, he could see and speak, and know per- 
sons. But this would directly contradict the decla- 
ration of the wise man ; — (See Eccl. ix. 5) : * For 
the living know that they shall die ; but the dead know 
not any thing.' Divine revelation makes us acquaint- 
ed with no sentient existence of man, after he dies, 
until he is raised from the dead ; in which resurrection 
Jesus told the Sadducees, that men are the children 
of God, being the children of the resurrection ; that 
they are equal unto the angels, and can die no more. 
It is quite clear that St. Paul believed in no sentient 



98 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

State between death and the resurrection ; for he rea- 
sons as follows : — (1 Cor. xv. 16 — 18) : ' For if the 
dead rise not, then is not Christ raised ; and if Christ 
be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your 
sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ 
are perished.' What sense would there be in this dec- 
laration of the apostle, if men can exist, and know, 
and see, and speak, and suffer, and enjoy, after they 
are dead, without being made alive in the resurrection 1 
Look, for a moment at Lazarus, in Abraham's bosom. 
What condition is Abraham in ? The common opin- 
ion is, that he is in a happy state. What benefit then 
would a resurrection be to him ? What condition is 
Lazarus in 1 This same common opinion supposes 
that he is in a blessed state. How then could St. Paul 
say, that unless Abraham and Lazarus should be rais- 
ed from the dead, they had perished? If we maintain 
this state between death and the resurrection, in which 
men are active beings, exercise the functions of con- 
sciousness, are capable of enjoying and of suffering, 
we contradict the statement made by St. Paul just re- 
cited. Now the scene, of what we call the parable of 
the Rich Man and Lazarus, is not laid in the resurrec- 
tion state, but in hades, or the grave ; and Abraham 
with Lazarus in his bosom, and the rich man are all 
here where they hold conversation. 

Will it be asked, if in all the scriptures there is to 
be found a passage, where the word hell is used, 
and where it represents those who are there as speak- 
ing, and where nothing is meant by7ieZ/but the grave, 
or the state of the dead? — (See Isa. xiv. 9 — 11.) 
*Hell (hades) fi-om beneath is moved for thee to meet 
thee at thy con^.ing ; it stirreth up ihe dead for thee, 
even all the chief ones of the earth ; it hath raised up 
from their thrones all the kinos of the nations. All 



1 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 99 

they shall speak, and say unto thee, Art thou also be- 
come weak as we? Art thou become like unto us 1 
Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, (hell or ha- 
des) and the noise of thy viols ; the worm is spread 
under thee, and the worms cover thee.' Here the 
prophet makes the inhabitants of hell, with all the an- 
cient kings, and chief ones of the earth, come forth to 
meet the king of Babylon at his approach ; and he 
makes these kings and nobles speak to the king of 
Babylon, and ask him questions, and state to him cer- 
tain facts, &LC. Let us ask why the Christian clergy 
have not supposed that this passage gives a relation 
concerning the inhabitants of the hell with which they 
have so long frightened their hearers ? The answer 
is very ready ; there is nothing said about torment in 
this hell, in Isaiah. The prophet presents us with a 
vast company all in motion, eager to meet the king of 
Babylon at his approach, but there is no intimation 
that any of this vast multitude were in torment. If 
the prophet had represented them in a suffering state, 
the clergy would have believed that their doctrine of a 
future state of misery was as amply supported by this 
scripture, as by the account of the rich man in hades. 
But when they find all the inhabitants of hell in as 
lively a motion as are the inhabitants of a populous 
city, when coming forth to meet and welcome some 
great personage, they see nothing but a parable. 

Having, as we think, given as good a reason for be- 
lieving the passage, concerning the rich man and Laza- 
rus, a parable, as is the first rendered for believing what 
Jotham said of the trees, a parable, we shall now en- 
deavor to show that our second reason is as good, as 
the second, which was assigned for that purpose. As 
that was found in the connexion, and general subject, 
so we shall find in the connexion, and general subject, 



100 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

on which Jesus was treating, when he delivered the 
passage concerning the rich man and Lazarus, evi- 
dence equally apparent. 

The subject commences with the 15th chapter, and 
continues to the end of the 16th. A circumstance oc- 
curred which gave no small offence to the Pharisees 
and Scribes, who were constantly on the watch to see 
the conduct of Jesus, in order to notice whatever they 
could find in the same, which they could censure. 
They saw all the publicans and sinners drawing near 
unto him to hear his preaching. At this they mur- 
mured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eat- 
eth with them. Jesus replied, using three very appro- 
priate and instructive parables. The first of the lost 
sheep ; the second of the lost piece of silver ; and, 
the third of the prodigal son, and his elder brother. 
These parables contained a complete answer to the ob- 
jection which the Pharisees and Scribes had stated 
against him. By the elder brother he evidently rep- 
resented his murmuring opposers, who, according to the 
parable, were, by their own envious and wicked spirit, 
excluded from the blessed enjoyments, to which peni- 
tent sinners were welcomed by the favor of the Gospel. 
Having thus answered his opposers, he turned to his 
disciples, and delivered the parable of the unjust stew- 
ard, in hearing of the Pharisees. In this parable the 
divine teacher informed his disciples that the religious 
Jews, as a people, were going to be turned out of the 
stewardship, which, under the legal dispensation, they 
had occupied, as they had not with faithfulness dis- 
charged its duties. He also gave his disciples to un- 
derstand that though the Jews were going out of the 
trust, in which they had held a station, they were 
making no provision for their future wants, in which 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 101 

they discovered less wisdom than an unjust steward, 
who made friends of his lord's creditors. The Phari 
sees hearing this parable, were highly provoked, and so 
exasperated that they derided Jesus. He replied, ' Ye 
are they which justify yourselves before men ; but God 
knoweth your hearts : for that which is highly esteem- 
ed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 
He then adds, not in the least departing from his sub- 
ject, * The law and the prophets were until John : 
since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and 
every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heav- 
en and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.' 
Here he introduces a parable again, for the purpose 
of representing the impropriety of setting aside the 
law, and of introducing the gospel dispensation, until 
the law was fulfilled ; and also of the impropriety of 
holding connexion with the law dispensation after it 
was legally discharged. This parable reads as follows : 
^ Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth an- 
other, committeth adultery ; and whosoever marrieth 
her that is put away from her husband, committeth 
adultery.' The next words commence the parable of 
the Rich Man and Lazarus ; and there seems no rea- 
son to doubt that it was designed to represent the error 
the Jews would fall into, by adhering to the ritual dis 
pensation, after it was fulfilled in Christ ; the misera- 
ble condition which has been the lot of that people 
ever since the reception of the Gentiles into the gos- 
pel covenant, and faith of Abraham, signified by Abra-- 
ham's bosom. Whoever is acquainted with the many 
passages, in the Old and the New Testaments, relating 
to these very prominent subjects, will be able to associ- 
ate a multitude, which evidently, point to them. And, 
9* 



102 EXAMINATION OP THE DOCTRINE 

as before suggested, since we have long ago published 
our views of this parable, we deem it unnecessary to 
be further particular in this place. 

We may be permitted, however, to add, that it ap- 
pears to be equally unreasonable, to take this ac- 
count of the rich man and Lazarus away from the 
general subject of the Saviour's discourse, in which 
we find it, and to apply it to signify the enjoyments 
and sufferings, and conversations of dead men, in 
hades or the grave, as it would be to take Jotham's 
parable away from the history of the Shechemites and 
Abimelech, and use it to prove that there was once a 
time, when the trees wanted a king over them, and 
that they actually made verbal requests to the olive- 
tree, to the fig-tree, and to the vine for that purpose, 
and were by them refused, in speeches, which are re- 
corded ; and that they obtained the consent of the 
bramble, in a speech which it returned to their re- 
quest. 

As the following passage is about as much relied on 
for the support of a future state of retribution, as the 
passage we have just considered, we will not omit to 
notice it in this place. — 'And I say unto you, my 
friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and 
after that have no more that they can do ; but I will 
forewarn you whom ye shall fear : fear him, which af- 
ter he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell ; yea, 
I say unto you, fear him/ — (Luke xii. 4, 5.) 

There are several reasons which seem not only to 
justify an attempt to explain this passage of Scripture, 
but also to call seriously for the same. The use which 
has long been made of this passage, by divines, to 
substantiate the doctrine of misery in the future state, 



1 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 103 

and the fearful horrors with which they have torment- 
ed their unhappy adherents, seem to call for an effort 
to disarm such an unholy cause of a weapon to which 
it has no right, but which it has long used with truly 
lamentable effect. To this we may add some pressing 
requests, for an exposition of the passage, to be pre- 
sented to the public. It is true that there have already 
been published sufficient comments on this Scripture 
to satisfy the candid that it contains no authority in 
support of the terrible sentiment, in vindication of 
which it has been generally used. But still the un- 
warrantable practice is continued, and calls for a full 
and clear explanation are also continued. 

In the first place, it may be beneficial to consider 
the sentiment in support of which this passage has 
been used, and the application of the passage to it. 
1st. It is believed that the word hellm the text, means 
a place of unspeakable torment in the invisible world. 
2dly. That being cast into hell, means, being cast 
into this state of torment. 3dly. That as men are not 
able to injure us after they have taken our lives, we 
need not fear them. 4thly. But as God is able, after 
he has killed us, to cast us into this place of torment, 
we should fear him. 

It may not be necessary to be farther particular in 
stating the common doctrine, to which our text is ap- 
plied, because it is generally well understood. But 
we think it somewhat important that such objections 
to the foregoing use of the text, as have arisen in our 
meditations on the subject, should be considered. 

1st, We object to this use of the text, because we 
have no information, in any other part or parts of holy 
writ, that our Creator has established such a place of 



104 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

torment, in the invisible world ; and we are very con- 
fident that such information is not given in our text. 
2dly, We object to this use, because it evidently 
dishonors that Being whom we ought both to love and 
venerate. If a being who contrives a state of unmer- 
ciful sufferings for his own creatures, deserves our love 
and our homage, we surely cannot imagine one so 
evil as not to have equal claims to the same. 

-3dly, It is very evident that the divine Master was 
endeavoring, in the discourse in which our text is 
found, not only to put his disciples on their guard 
against two powers, which were able to injure them, 
the one more, however, than the other ; but also to 
direct them where their safety lay, and where, or in 
whom, to place their confidence. See Matt, x, where 
the parallel passage is found ; verses 16 — ^^18 : * Be- 
hold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves : 
be ye, therefore, wise as serpents, and harmless as 
doves. But beware of men ; for they will deliver you 
up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their 
synagogues ; and ye shall be brought before governors 
and kings for my sake, and for a testimony against 
them and the Gentiles.' Verses 22, 23 : ' And ye 
shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But 
when they shall persecute you in this city, flee ye into 
another; for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have 
gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be 
come.' Verses 28 — 31 : ' And fear not them which 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but 
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and 
body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a far- 
thing ; and one of them shall not fall on the ground 
without your Father. But the very hairs of your head 
are all numbered. Fear ye not, therefore, ye are of 
more value than many sparrows.' Here take particu- 



t 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 105 

lar notice: 1st, Jesus calls the enemies of the gospel 
wolves, and his disciples he calls sheep, which he was 
sending forth among these wolves ; or, in other words, 
he represents his enemies and his disciples by such 
figures. 2dly, Observe that Jesus informed his disci- 
ples what these wolves would do to them ; and also 
let it be remembered that he told them to beware of 
men on account of what they would do to them. 3dly, 
Let it be duly noticed that immediately after the dis- 
ciples are told whom not to fear, and whom they 
should fear, Jesus says, * Are not two sparrows sold 
for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall on the 
ground without your Father. But the very hairs of 
your head are all numbered. Fear ye not, therefore, 
ye are of more value than many sparrows.' Here it 
is quite evident that the divine Master meant lo teach 
his disciples, that as their heavenly Father condescend- 
ed to take care of even one sparrow, he would cer- 
tainly take care of them who were of so much more 
value than many sparrows, that he had even numbered 
the hairs of their head. But the use of the text under 
consideration, to which we object, supposes that Jesus 
represented to his disciples, that their heavenly Father, 
in whom he would have them put such entire confi- 
dence as to fear nothing, was more to be feared than 
all the wolves among whom he sent his defenceless 
sheep ! We cannot believe that the divine Master 
was so palpably inconsistent in his instructions, as to 
hold up as an object of the greatest fear, that Father 
in heaven, in whom he directed his disciples so to 
trust as not to fear. 

4thly, We object to the common use of our text, 
because the passage is found in the Saviour's particu- 
lar directions, givea to his disciples. And there ara 



106 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

many things said in these directions which are by no 
means applicable to men in general. But the com- 
mon use of the text applies it to all men, in all condi- 
tions, and in all ages. And, moreover, Jesus told 
these disciples, in the chapter where our text is re- 
corded, calling them a little flock, not to fear, for it 
was their Father's good pleasure to give them the 
kingdom ; see verse 32. To this little flock, we can- 
not believe that their divine Shepherd meant to hold 
up their heavenly Father, as more to be feared than 
all their enemies. 

5thly, We object to this common use of our text, 
because there is no mention made of our Creator, 
nor any word used in the text or its connexion, that 
presents him as that power that was to be feared, be- 
cause he could cast into hell. To us it seems unac- 
countable that learned divines, who, no doubt, have 
been honest in their studies of the Scriptures, have 
never been startled at the objections which we have 
here stated ; and yet there are many more which 
might be presented. But we desire not to be too 
tedious. 

In the second place, we shall attempt an explanation 
of the passage under consideration, according to the 
present convictions of our understanding. But w^e 
would candidly state, before we proceed, that what we 
are about to offer, is not, in all its parts, so perfectly 
clear to our own minds, as we could wish ; and there- 
fore a hope is entertained, that some one of more dis- 
cernment, and of more successful research, will favor 
us by reflecting more light on this subject. 

We shall begin by suggesting that Jesus, in this 
discourse, spoke to his disciples concerning the ene- 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 107 

mies of whom he would have them beware; and dis- 
tinguished between those who only had power, that 
is, legal authority to scourge them in their synagogues, - 
and in various ways to treat them cruelly, and others, 
whose power, or legal authority, extended, not only to 
the taking of their lives, but to denying them the 
rites of burial ; and who would destroy their lives and 
their bodies in yeewa^ which is the name of the place 
which the translators call hell. To this suggestion, 
two objections will arise in the mind of the reader : 
First, It will be said that Jesus did not point out two 
objects of fear, but one only ; for he said, Fear not 
them that kill the body, &.c. but fear him which, 
after he hath killed, &/C. To answer this objection, 
we must be able to sl.ow, that in scripture language, 
it often occurs, that when a preference is to be given 
to one of two things, the less receives an entire nega- 
tive, in order to heighten the other. For our satisfac- 
tion on this subject, we refer to Psalm li. 16, 17 : 
* For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it ; 
thou delighiest not in bnrnt-ofTering. The sacrifices 
of God are a broken spirit ; a broken and a contrite 
heart, Q God, thou wilt not despise.' Surely none, 
acquainted with the Scriptures, will suppose that 
David did not believe that God required sacrifices un- 
der the law dispensation. But all good men, in all ages, 
have understood that in God's sight a humble and a 
contrite heart was a more acceptable sacrifice than 
were such as were offered on the altar. To strengthen 
this view, see i Sam. xv. 22 : ' And Samuel said, 
hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and 
sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord 1 Be- 
hold, to obey is better than sacrifice ; and to hearken, 
than the fat of rams/ What we are in search of, 



lOS EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

is fully comprised in the following ; Hosea vi. 6 : 
'For I desired mercy and not sacrifice ; and the 
knowlege of God more than burnt offerings/ Here 
an entire negative is followed by comparison. If it 
were proper to say that God required the knowledge 
of himself more than burnt-offerings, it allows that he 
required burnt-offerings, which is what the prophet 
asserts, in the first member of the yerse, that God did 
not desire. Jeremiah, in chap. vii. 22, 23, presents 
us with a testimony direct and full to our subject : 
* For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded 
them in the day that I brought them out of the land 
of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices ; 
but this thing commanded I them, saying. Obey my 
voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be ray 
people ; and walk in all the ways that I have com- 
manded you, that it may be well with you.' With 
this, compare the institutions and ordinances of the 
levitical priesthood, as recorded in Exodus and Leviti- 
cus ; and it is seen at once, that the meaning of Jere- 
miah is, that God did not command the sacrifices of 
that ancient priesthood but in a sense subordinate to 
the moral precepts of the lav/. Jesus himself, though 
he preferred a good moral act to any gift that might 
be offered on the altar, required the latter also : 
Matt. V. 23, 24 : ' Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to 
the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath 
aught against thee ; leave there thy gift before the 
altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy bro- 
ther, and then come and offer thy gift.' But if no 
other proof of what we are endeavoring to establish 
were at hand, the words of Jesus which follow would 
be sufficient ; John xii. 44 : * Jesus cried, and said, 
lie that believeth on me, believeth not on nie, but on 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 109 

him that sent me.' In words, Iiere is a contradiction ; 
but not in sense. What Jesus meant is clear : He 
that believes on him, believes that the Father is greater 
than he ; and therefore gives the preference to him 
who sent him. 

HiviniT given what we think is a fair and candid 
reply to this firet objection, we shall now attend to the 
second, which rests on the word kill. It will, un- 
doubtedly, by some be objected, that as Jesus said. Fear 
not them that kill the body, &;c. he assigned to those 
whom he told his disciples not to fear, the power to 
take their lives. To meet this objection, we confess 
we have not so ample means as we could wish, nor so 
much as we might probably obtain by a little more ex- 
ertion than we have time to employ at present. But 
what little we have being measural>ly satisfactory to 
us, we give it to the reader, hoping that further light 
on the subject will from some quarter arise. In the 
first place, we think that the religious enemies of the 
disciples, who were of the Jews, being Roman sub- 
jects, had not the prerogative to take their lives ; but 
that they had the privilege of their ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline, which enabled them to cast out of the syna- 
gogue, to scourge with whips, and to inflict various 
and cruel tortures ; but not to take life. We think 
this fact is well sub-^tantiated by the plea which the 
Jews made before Pilxte, as recorded, John xviii. 31 : 
* Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge 
him according to your law. The Jews, therefore, said 
unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to 
death.* 

In the second place, we are well persuaded that the 
word anoxTeti^at, which in the text is rendered kill, is 
not unfrequently used to express cruel torturing, where 
10 



110 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

life is not taken. Parkhurst says that anoxTslvco gen- 
erally implies cruelty and barbarity. Donnegan, thus : 
to torture, torment, to render miserable or wretched. 
These we esteem good authority for supposing that al- 
though this word is often used to imply the taking of life, 
it may be understood in a more limited sense in this 
passage. 

In the third place, we think it is very evident that 
Jesus had the fact in his mind, when he spoke to his 
disciples on this subject, that their Jewish enemies had 
not the power to take their lives. This appears by 
what he says, as recorded in Matt, x., to which we have 
already referred. See verses 17, 18 : ' Beware of 
men ; for they will deliver you up to the councils, and 
they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye 
shall be brought before governors and kings for my 
sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.' 
If their Jewish enemies, who could bring the disciples 
before their councils, and could scourge them in their 
synagogues, had authority to take their lives, they 
would have had no occasion to bring them before 
Roman governors and kings, but would have been 
glad to accomplish the whole work themselves. 

Fourthly, after the divine Instructer had presented 
his disciples Avith these two authorities, which would 
be em.ployed against them, it w^as natural for him to 
warn them to be more on their guard against falling 
into the hands of the Rom.an authorities, than in- 
to the hands of those whose power was less exten- 
sive. And, therefore, he warned them to fear the 
greater power more than the less. But it is evident, 
from the whole connexion , that he would guard them 
against both, by their being wise as serpents, and 
harmlejjs as doves. 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. Ill 

In the passage, as recorded by Matthew, this com- 
parison, for which we contend, is plainly expressed by 
4he word rather (^fiallov^ ^ Bat rather fear him,' &c. 
See chap. vi. 30 : ' Wherefore, if God so clothe the 
grass of the field, which to*day is, and to-morrow is 
cast into the oven, shall he not much more (fiallov) 
clothe you, O ye of little faith 1 ' vii. 11 : * If ye then, 
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your 
children, how much more (^fiallov) shall your Father 
which is in heaven give good things to them that ask 
him. * 

And fifthly, it appears evident, that, according to the 
text in Matthew, which answers to the one in Luke, 
which we are considering, life could not be taken by 
the lesser power : ' And fear not them which kill the 
body, but are not able to kill the soul,' &c. The word 
here rendered soul is V^i^/^, which means the natural 
life of man. See John xiii. 37, 38: ' Peter said unto 
him. Lord, why cannot I follow thee now ? I will lay 
down my life (yjvz^) for thy sake. Jesus answered 
him, Wilt thou lay down thy life {^vxr]) for my sake ? * 
It is quite unnecessary to multiply quotations on this 
subject. The fact is well known to all who have ex- 
amined this word, that it means the natural life ; and 
there was no more propriety in rendering this word 
soul in Matt. x. 28, than there was for so rendering it 
John xiii. 37, 38 : and then the passage would have 
made Peter to say, ' I will lay down my soul for thy 
sake,' and Jesus to ^sk him, wilt thou lay down thy 
soul for my sake 1 As there is some reason to believe 
that there was something like a wrong influence oper- 
ating in the minds of the translators of our Scriptures, 
we must beg indulgence while we quote several pas- 
s more. And this we do, that the common error 



112 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

concerning tliis subject, and which has been occasion- 
ed by the translation, may be corrected. Matt. xvi. 
25, 26 : * For whosoever shall save his life {^^^yji) shall 
lose it ; and whosoever shall lose his life {^P^jyji) f^^' ^y 
sake, shall find it. For, what is a man profited, if he 
shall gain the whde world, and lose his own soul ? 
{ipvx^) ^>*s what shall a man give in exchange for his 
soul? i^ipv/r^ * If by the word soul, the translators 
meant what divines now mean by it, that is, an im- 
mortal part of man, what could induce them to use 
this word in verse 26, in place of the word life, which 
they used in the verse preceding ? This unwarranted 
variation of rendering the same word in these two 
verses, has had a most pernicious eflfect. And profess- 
ed divines, either through ignorance or hypocrisy, have 
imposed the notion on common people, that Jesus, in 
the above passage, spoke of the eternal damnation of 
man's immortal soul! That the reader may see the 
gross absurdity of allowing the word rendered /zyi and 
soul, to mean an immortal soul in man, we will put 
down the first verse of the last quoted passage agreea- 
bly to such a supposition. Then verse 25 would read 
thus : * For whosoever will save his immortal soul shall 
lose it; and whosoever will lose his immortal soul for 
my sake, shall find it 1 ' See also Matt. xx. 28 : * Even 
as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, 
but to minister, and to give his life {ipy/ri") a ransom 
for many.' No one supposes that Jesus here meant to 
say, that he came to give his inmiortal soul a ransom 
for many. Luke xiv. 26 : * If any man come to rne, 
and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and 
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own 
life («/>v/r]) also, he cannot be my disciple.' We hard- 
ly believe that any will contend that Jesus meant that 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 113 

a man must hate his immortal soul, to fit him to be his 
disciple. Acts xx. 24 : * But none of these things move 
me ; neither count I my life {ipy/ri) dear unto me/ &lc. 
Surely, Paul did not mean to say that he did not count 
his immortal soul dear unto him. 

Notwithstanding we expressed a want of entire sat- 
isfaction respecting the last objection to which we have 
replied, we now say that this want has been nearly, if 
not entirely removed, by comparing the different pas- 
sages which relate to the subject. And we feel a good 
degree of confidence that the mind of the candid 
reader will feel the force of what has been offered, and 
see the propriety of paraphrasing our text as follows : 
^ And J say unto you, my friends, be not so much 
afraid of (hem who have power only to scourge you in 
their synagogues, and to administer cruel tortures to 
your bodies, but have no authority to take your lives, 
as of that more extensive authority to which your 
brethren the Jews will deliver you, by bringing you 
before governors and kings ; for this power can, after 
inflicting cruelties on your bodies, doom your lives and 
bodies to be destroyed in yisi^pa. 

It now remains only to give the true meaning of the 
word yBEvva^ which in our text is rendered hell, though 
this has already been done in the preceding pages. 
Parkhurst, in his Greek and English Lexicon, in- 
forms us that yeevva is the corruption of two Hebrew 
words, one signifying a valley, and the other signify- 
ing Hinnom, the name of a person once the possessor 
of it. He says, ' This valley of Hinnom lay near Je- 
rusalem, and had been the place of those abominable 
sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews burned their 
10* 



114 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

children alive to Molech, Baal, or the Sun. A par- 
ticular place in this valley was called Tophet, and the 
valley itself, the valley of Tophet, from the fire stove in 
which they burned their children to Molech/ He fur- 
ther says, ' A gehenna of fire, (Mat.!, v. 22,) does, 
as I apprehend, in its outward and primary sense, re- 
late to that dreadful doom of being burnt alive in the 
valley of Hinnom.' The passage in Matt. v. 22, just 
referred to, reads as follows : ^ But I say unto you, that 
whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, 
shall be in danger of the judgment : and whosoever 
shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of 
the council ; but whosoever shall say. Thou fool, shall 
be in danger of hell fire.' That the learned Parkhurst, 
who was a believer in future, endless misery, was in 
the right on this subject, there can be no doubt. But 
more authority might be quoted, if it were necessary, 
to show that the word rendered hell, in our text, means 
nothing but that place of execution, where malefactors 
were cast alive, and consumed in fire, 



(115) 



REPLY TO A FRIEND, 

WHO HAD DEFENDED FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 

Brother — As I am unable to understand the entire 
correctness of your reasoning, I am persuaded you 
will cheerfully indulge a few remarks, which have no 
other object than the discovery of truth for our mu- 
tual edification and comfort. 

You say; ' If the punishment which is annexed to 
sin is ever threatened before sin is committed, and 
is urged upon the creature, as a preventive of trans- 
gression, I see no reason against the punishment of a 
future state being denounced, for the purpose, if not 
of *' establishing Christian morality in this," yet to in- 
crease the inducements to virtue.' Here you say, 
that you ' see no reason against the punishment of a 
future state being denounced ; ' and yet, before you 
close your few remarks, you say ; ' All Universalists, 
whom I have ever known, profess to believe, that pun- 
ishment is disciplinary, and emendatory. They be- 
lieve, too, that the Deity will exert such means as are 
necessary to produce certain ends, till those means 
become effectual. If these propositions be true, they 
may help us to see, why misery in another world was 
not directly threatened to Adam, Cain,' &.c. Here it 
seems that you assign a reason for that, for which you 
just before could see no reason ! If you meant, by 
inserting the word directly^ that, although the Divine 
Being did not speak to Adam and to Cain in language 
which directly implied that their punish mentvvould be 



116 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

in a future world, yet the divine declarations will bear 
such a construction, ' — why did you not endeavor to 
show this ? And on the contrary, sir, if you did not 
mean this by the word directly, what did you mean 
by it ? 

Again, you ask the following question ; * If fear is 
of any use to mortals, why should it become utterly in- 
efficient, and appear so unreasonable a thing, when 
the causes of it are placed in a future world 1 * Hav- 
ing asked this question, in the room of bringing for- 
ward an instance of divine threatening, which neces- 
sarily carries the cause of fear into a future world, you^ 
speak of the fear which moved Noah to build the ark 
to save himself and family from drowning in the flood. 
This, sir, brings your question back to yourself. If 
fear was of any use to Noah, why was not the cause 
of that fear placed in a future world] I am satisfied 
that your good sense will easily answer the question as 
it returns. You will say, Noah was in no danger of 
being drowned in a future world, and to prepare an 
ark to defend him against any other calamity would 
be unreasonable. Besides, as it is evident that the 
fear of the flood was sufficient to induce him to pre- 
pare for his safety, there could be no necessity of pre- 
senting him with any cause of fear in a future state. 
Would you have your readers believe, that the fear, 
which moved Noah, was that fear which hath torment, 
which perfect love casts out; or that fear of the Lord^ 
which is the beginning of wisdom, and perfectly 
accords with true love and liberty of conscience? In 
a word, if Noah did not act from the spirit of love, 
he must have acted from a different spirit; and if 
from a different spirit, will you say that it was accep- 
table to God, who is love ? 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 117 

You furthermore say ; * Whether fear be necessary 
to gain true love,' or not, one thing is certain ; if it 
was not a principle of action, necessary to the moral 
system, God would never have placed before men 
these objects which excite fearful apprehensions. Nor 
should we have heard, that ** Noah being warned of 
God, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving 
of his house/' We should have been informed, that 
Noah, actuated by love, and influenced by that liberty 
of conscience, which is so congenial to the feelings of 
human nature, in knowing that he was punished, the 
moment he did wrong, and rewarded the moment he 
did right, would, under these circumstances, have set 
the future at defiance, and acted as * true love and 
liberty of conscience had dictated.' 

It is acknowledged, sir, that objects which excite 
fearful apprehensions are, by a kind Providence, placed 
before men, and that the fear which they occasion is 
of utility to the* moral, as well as the temporal interest 
of society ; but neither does this fact, or the case of 
Noah in particular, give the least countenance to the 
necessity of placing objects which excite fearful ap- 
prehensions, in a future world. The fear of poverty 
and want is useful byjnducing to industry and pru- 
dence ; but the object of this rational fear is in the 
present state. But how the utility of this fear proves 
that it is necessary to place objects of fear in another 
world is not understood. The fear of losing the en- 
ergy and activity ofmentd powers may very rationally 
induce a person to avoid intemperance, and thereby 
contribute not a little to his morals. But how this 
proves that it is necessary to place this terrific object 
in a future world, is not seen. The powers and ener- 
gies of mind in a future world will, no doubt, depend 



118 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

on the constitution and organization of that state of 
being ; which state is known to God, but not to us. 

What are your readers to understand by the follow- 
ing, above quoted 1 * Tliat Noah, actuated by love, 
and influenced by that liberty of conscience, which is 
so congenial to the feelings of human nature, in know- 
ing he was punished, the moment he did wrong; and 
rewarded the moment he did right, would, under 
these circumstances, have set the future at defiance, 
and acted as his '^ true love and liberty of conscience 
had dictated." If yon are rightly understood, your 
meaning is, that a belief, that our wi'ongs are punish- 
ed in the present state in w'hich they are committed, 
and that our virtues bring us present reward, is con- 
genial to the feelings of a wicked heart, and naturally 
induces to indulgence in sin. Sir, if you do not mean 
this, I confess, I am unable to conjecture that you 
mean any thing that relates to your subject. But is 
this doctrine matter of fact ? Do the wicked indulge 
in sin, because tiiey believe that they thereby render 
themselves miserable in the present life 1 Do they 
studiously avoid their duty to their God, to their neigh- 
bors and to themselves, because their wicked, deceived 
hearts believe that m keeping the commands there is 
great reward 1 Brother, I am not a little surprised to 
find this sentiment indicated from the pen of a Uni- 
versalist. If I, by misunderstanding you, have at- 
tached a meaning to your words, which you did not 
intend, I shall be glad to be set right. 

Again you say; 'The sinner is informed that he 
shall be punished, till he shall be brought to submit, 
and becomes the willing subject of God's kingdom. 
The above propositions, w^hich are conceded to by all 
Universalists, prove as much. Hence ^ reason ' wili^ 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 119 

' carry this punishment beyond the grave/ unless it 
can be proved, that the distress which sin occasions in 
this life, works the full intended effect.' Here, if I do 
not misunderstand, you establish what you before rep- 
resented as congenial to the heart of the \^ icked ; that 
punishment is in the same time of transgression, and 
in no other time. A man is a transgressor until he 
submits to the government of God. and you allow him 
to be punished no longer than until his submission. 
Thus you establish, and I do not see why you do not 
establish beyond all contradiction, that sin and its 
punishment are in the same state. And I can hardly 
believe that you will oppose the belief, that happiness 
will attend a state of obedience and holiness. 

That * reason will carry punishment beyond the 
grave, unless it can be proved, that the distress, which 
sin occasions in this life, works the full intended ef- 
fect,' may, perhaps, be justly doubted. The nature 
of this reasoning is evidently erroneous ; because rea- 
son would not dare to carry punishment beyond the 
grave, unless it were first proved, that sufficient pun- 
ishment had not been inflicted on this side the grave. 
Because reason might be too weak to ascertain 
whether punishment had been sufficient or not, why 
should it become confident that more was necessary 
and justifiable ? And you, sir, must see, as I think, 
that this argument will empower reason to carry the 
punishment of David, king of Israel, of Paul, the 
apostle, and of all the rest of mankind, not only be- 
yond the grave, unless it can be proved that punish- 
ment had its full effect in this life, but even to mil- 
lions of millions of ages in eternity, unless it can be 
proved that short of such duration, punishment will 
have effected its object. But you say ; * Punishment 



120 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

has need of no special limitation, as to the time when 
it shall cease/ Allow this to stand together with your 
last considered argument, and reason will carry pun- 
ishment beyond any limitation you can possibly sug- 
gest ! 

As in confirmation of your reasoning, you refer to 
Lev. 26, you would have been consistent with your- 
self, had you contended that reason would carry the 
punishments there recorded, beyond the grave, unless 
it could be proved that all the Israelites who perished 
in consequence of their sins, were sufficiently pun- 
ished this side the grave. Had you done this, you 
would have employed reason in showing that terror, 
consumption, and the burning-ague consumed their 
eyes, and caused them sorrow of heart beyond the 
grave. And that in the future world they sowed 
their seed in vain, because their enemies ate it ; that 
they were slain before their enemies, beyond the grave, 
and that they who hated them ruled over them in 
another world ; and that beyond the grave they fled 
when none pursued them, (S^c. &c. Read the whole 
chapter, sir, and you find no punishment but what is 
necessarily confined to this mortal state. 

These, brother, are some of the faults, which I 
have thought it my duty to point out, in your reason- 
ing. If I have erred, it is my want of judgment, — it 
is no defect of my will. h. b. 



i 



(121) 



LETTER TO A FRIEND, 

WHO HAD WRITTEN A BOOK, IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE 
OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED, 

Sir, — I hereby acknowledge the favor of your pub* 
iication, as above entitled, and to its principal argu- 
ments signify my cordial consent and approbation. 
There is, however, one subject which commences on 
page 52, on which I feei it my duty to suggest a few 
remarks ; having no other object in view than a care- 
ful and candid investigation of truth. And as you 
appep" to be in search after truth alone, I feel a hope 
that you will not receive it as unkind in me that I have 
used the freedom to call this subject in question. The 
following are your words : ' There is at least a possi- 
bility, even from the mere light of nature, that human 
sufferings extend beyond the grave. The contrary, it 
must be conceded, is no where advanced in the in- 
spired writings.' All the argument which you advance 
in further support of the doctrine of future punish- 
ment is in the following words, on the same page : 
* To all appearance, chastisements do not always, in 
the present state, complete their benevolent design.' 
You then, add ; * There is reason, therefore, to con- 
clude they will be renewed in the world of spirits.' 

In my first remark, sir, I will remind you of the 
very great disparity, which to me appears, between 
your subject and your reasoning upon it. Your sub- 
ject is of vast moment, as it involves a state of exist- 
11 



1522 EXAMINATION OP THE DOCTRINE 

ence after the present mortal state ends ; and must be 
contemplated in relation to the constitution and organ- 
ization of man in that, to us, unknown world. The 
first step, by which you approach the proposition that 
human sufferings extend beyond the grave is the fol- 
lowing: ' The contrary, it mjjst be conceded, is no 
where advanced in the inspired writings.' That this 
remark falls infinitely short of your subject is most 
apparent. Is every thing a fact, respecting a future 
state, which is not spoken of in the inspired writings? 
We are not certified, in direct terms, that * adul- 
tery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, 
witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, 
seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, 
revellings, and such like,' will not be renewed in the 
world of spirits ; but would you be willing to allow, 
that as the inspired writings no where say that these 
will not exist in the world of spirits, that they there- 
fore will exist and be practised there ? Will you reply, 
and say, — All these, the apostle calls the fruits of the 
flesh ; but as the flesh will not exist in the world of 
spirits, so, of course, these fruits cannot be produced 
where the tree, which bears them, cannot grow ? But 
if you say this, you will perceive the reasonableness of 
the inquiry which demands the necessity of renewing 
chastisements and suflerings in a state where crimes 
can never be committed. 

I am utterly unable, sir, to see the least propriety in 
supposing that there will be punishments for sin in a 
state where sin will never exist. And to me it is alto- 
gether unaccountable, why the advocates for future 
punishment should always direct their observations to 
the particular subject of punishment, and never attempt 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 123 

to prove that men will sin in that state, by which this 
punishment will be rendered necessary. 

The second and last step, by which you advance to 
your conclusion, that punishment will be renewed in 
the world of spirits, is the following : ' To all appear- 
ance, chastisements do not always, in the present 
state^ complete their benevolent design/ ' To all ap- 
pearance/ Why, sir, did you ever see the appearance 
of a spirit, after all the sufferings of this mortal state 
were closed 1 Pain brings man into the world, and 
pain carries him out; and as to any appearance which 
indicates his not suffering evil enough, it is doubted if 
any one has ever been able to discover it. Our bles- 
sed Saviour has informed us, that, * sufficient unto 
the day is the evil thereof 

St. Paul says, Rom. vi, 7 : * For he that is dead is 
freed from sin.* With this scripture declaration before 
us, can we say that men will be sinners in a future 
state? If not, what use will chastisement serve ? 

To conclude. May that perfect love, of which you 
speak on your next page, even deliver us from all those 
tormenting fears, which false notions have excited in 
dark and benighted minds, and prove a far more ef- 
fectual restraint to the blind passions of the flesh, 
than has been invented by the vain and foolish imag- 
inations of men, 

I am, dear sir, with much esteem, your obliged 
friend and servant, H. B. 



(124) 



REPLY TO REASON. 

[Reason had written an unpleasant and unfriendly notice 
of Mr. Ballou's Letter to a Friend, (which we have given 
above) to which Brother Ballou rejoins asLfollows.] 

Sir, — It is my humble opinion, that what yon have 
written, in reply to my letter to the author of a late 
publication, entitled ^ Final Restoration Demon- 
strated,' &c., is not, in all respects, of a character 
which is consistent with reason. You seem to signi- 
fy that my letter was not couched in language of de- 
cent respect ; but I do not believe that there is any 
such deficiency in my communication, if inspected 
with a candid eye, such as reason always uses. Reason 
would surely be generous enough to allow the most fa- 
vorable construction to be the true intent of the author ; 
but it appears to me, that you have departed from this 
rule, and indulged in framing constructions widely dif- 
ferent from the most favorable. Having thus, as I think, 
departed from the pure dictates of reason, you proceed 
to write in a style, which certainly indicates an un- 
pleasant temper, if not an unfriendly heart. This, 
sir, I am persuaded, is not consistent with reasoDa 
Reason surely dictates that when a writer appears 
in public, with his name and profession, he should 
not become the subject of resentment and treated 
in an unkind manner by a fictitious name. Nor 
does it seem altogether reasonable, that one, who 
would not be willing to have his name come before the 
public with his writings, should present himself in th^ 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 125 

character of an offended person, on account of what 
was written to another, until it should be known, that 
the latter considered himself injured, and stood in need 
of assistance. It is believed, that the author, whom I 
addressed, at which address you appear to be offended, 
is fully competent to judge of the character of my com- 
munication, and also to do justice to my remarks ; and if 
so, reason would conclude that there was no occasion 
of any thing like asperity from a third person. Res- 
pecting what I esteem the exceptionable character of 
your communication, I will here add no more ; but 
pass to notice some of your remarks in particular. 

The first which I shall notice, is what you say res- 
pecting the failure of chastisements in producing their 
benevolent designs in this life. You disallow the pro- 
priety of inquiring any thing concerning the spirit af- 
ter it has left the body, in relation to the question, 
whether to all appearance the chastisement had pro- 
duced its desired effects, so as not to render it necessary 
to renew punishment in a future state. But how is it 
possible to satisfy the eye of reason that a subject is 
not sufficiently punished, unless reason can have the 
subject to examine ? * To all appearance.' These 
words, sir, I noticed particularly, because I thought 
them used in too loose a way ; and I think so now. 
You think that the ' continuance of unsubdued pas- 
sions and uncorrected vices to the close of life ' are 
appearances which prove that chastisements do not 
complete their benevolent designs in this life. But, 
sir, what does reason say on this subject ? To me it 
replies ; Before t can judge of this question, I must be 
informed what these chastisements were designed for. 
If they were partly designed as a warning to others to 
11* 



126 EXAMINATION OF THE BOCTRmE 

avoid those practices which were visited with such 
miseries, so far their purpose may be effected without 
their being renewed hereafter. .If the administered 
punishment was designed to put a stop to the practice 
of vice, it evidently accomplishes this design by the 
death of the subject. Now, to all appearance these 
ends are fully answered. But if these chastisements 
were administered for the purpose of preparing the 
subject for the enjoyment of any privileges in another 
state of existence, then, in order to be satisfied, from 
appearances, that they had not accomplished their de- 
sign, it is necessary to examine the subject in that 
state. 

2. Because I complain, that the advocates of future 
punishment direct their arguments to prove that such 
punishment will be inflicted, in room of endeavoring 
to show that man will sin in the future state, whereby 
this punishment shall be rendered necessary, you think 
I appear to be ' unfortunately ignorant.' And add, that 
* there are hundreds of authors who have attempted to 
prove that many live and die in sin, remain in sin, and 
will rise to the resurrection of damnation.* Now, sir, 
as it becomes Reason to have compassion on the igno- 
rant^ I humbly request you to quote from one half the 
number of authors, which you here set down, in your 
communication, ever so short passages, where they evi- 
dently intended to prove that men will continue to 
commit sin in a future state for which they will then 
and there be punished ; but not everlastingly or to all 
eterniiy. So much, sir, I am authorized to ask in ref- 
erence to your large statement. And then I will in- 
form you that when I spoke on this subject, in my let- 
ter, which you have noticed, I gave no intimation that 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 127 

I had reference to those who have written on these 
points in former periods of the church. 

You say that you were amazed because I spoke of 
the future world, as an unknown world. If you were 
amazed I can hardly think you were in the due exercise 
of REASON. As amazed as any one may be at my ig- 
norance of a future state, I have no pride in pretend- 
ing to know that of which I am totally ignorant. My 
dear sir, after all that has been said by our doctors of 
divinity on the subject of a future state, reason will 
acknowledge that they have no more knowledge con- 
cerning its particulars than an infant child. No, they 
do not know for certainty that man will exist in anoth- 
er state. I am happy to believe in the doctrine of the 
scriptures, and to hope for immortality beyond the grave ; 
but as to any knowledge concerning that state I have 
none. You say further : * Notwithstanding all this 
dreadful ignorance, you affirm, that * sin will never ex- 
ist in a future state.' Sir, did I affirm this? Did 
reason dictate you to make this assertion ? I am sorry 
you have said this ; for though I know not who you 
are, I regret that any one should take such liberty. 
Should you write again, we may expect something on 
the subject of the immoral tendency of the doctrine 
which you oppose 1. 

If you understood me to quote the words of Christ ; 
* sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,' as proof 
that * all men suffer enough in this world, not to deserve 
any in a future state,' you understood me not accord- 
ing to the dictates of reason. Reason, sir, would at 
once see that this was only an accommodation of a 
passage ; and that it was not designed as embracing 
the subject on which the blessed Saviour was speaking. 



128 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

All that a candid mind could have seen in this case is 
this ; as Jesus said in another case, * sufficient unto 
the day is the evil thereof, ' so we may say in the one 
under consideration. 

You at once condemn the use which I made of 
Rom. vi. 7, * For he that is dead is freed from sin,' 
and say that the meaning of the passage is ; ' the dead 
unto sin are freed from sin.' In reply, permit me to 
say, that I am satisfied that many reputable divines will 
agree with you in this text, and be opposed to my opin- 
ion ; but, after all, I am honestly of the opinion which I 
have endeavored to support by the use of this passage, 
and honestly believe that the text can fairly bear no 
other construction. Let us examine this passage, that 
we may come at its true sense. The chapter begins 
thus : ' What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in 
sin that grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall 
we that are dead to sin live any longer therein 1 ' Now 
let us be careful to understand how the apostle makes 
out that he and his brethren were dead to sin. He 
adds ; * Know ye not, that so many of us as were bap- 
tized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? ' 
What death does the apostle mean here 7 I believe 
all will allow that he meant the death of his body. 
' Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death ; that like as Christ w^as raised up from the dead 
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
in newness of life.' There can be no doubt that the 
apostle here spoke of the resurrection of Christ from 
the death of the body. All this being granted, it is 
seen at once, what is meant by being dead to sin. It 
was the being baptized, by faith, into the real death 
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But if that state of 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 129 

being which Jesus, by his resurrection, brought to 
light and manifested, be a sinful state, there could be 
no good reason why the apostle should argue that those, 
who were baptized into the death of Jesus were dead 
unto sin. Look at the 10th verse : ' For in that he 
died, he died unto sin once : but in that he liveth, he 
liveth unto God.' How did Jesus die unto sin ? In 
his flesh he was tempted in all points, like unto his 
brethren, because he had such a body, and such a 
natural constitution as we all have ; but when he was 
dead, it is believed that he was not in a condition to 
be tempted. And it is further believed that in his res- 
urrection state he was not in a condition to be tempt- 
ed, or to suffer from the hands of sinners. He^ there- 
fore, in that he died, died unto sin ; but in that he 
liveth, he liveth unto God. If it were clear to the eye 
of REASON, that a dead man can be tempted and led 
into sin, I humbly conceive that St. Paul's meaning 
would be very obscure where he says, ^ For he that is 
dead is freed from sin.' And I furthermore conceive 
that it is very far from St. Paul's usual mode of rea- 
soning to say, that he that is dead to sin, is freed from 
sin ; for this is nothing more than to say, that he which 
is dead to sin, is dead to sin, which is saying, in reali- 
ty, nothing. 

You say that I attempted to prove that ' adultery, 
fornication, and several other pretty words and deeds 
will, not only, not exist, or be practised there, (in a 
future world) but that a principle, or even the con- 
sciousness of sin will never exist there.' In this in- 
stance, sir, I would hope you made a mistake. You 
can find no argument of mine to these several particu- 
lars. I do not pretend to say that David, king of Is^ 



130 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

rael, is now unconscious, that he was once an adulter- 
er, and that he combined murder with the crime ; nor 
do I contend that Paul is now unconscious that he was 
once a bloody persecutor of the saints ; but I quoted 
a passage from St. Paul to remind you that such 
crimes are the fruits of the flesh ; and I conceive that 
reason would have led you to understand, that in order 
for these fruits to be produced in a future world, the 
tree which bears them must flourish there. 

Sir, being a sincere friend to all mankind, I am 
yours truly, in the gospel of our Lord. H. B. 



(131) 



ON ROMANS VI. 7. 

* FOR HE THAT IS DEAD IS FREED FROM SIN/ 

[This was written in reply to a writer who had signed 
himself ' T.'] 

The writer gives us to understand, that he believes 
in a state of punishment after the resurrection ; and 
that because he understands that I disallow this idea, he 
supposes that I contradict the divine testimony. Thus 
the difference in our views is clearly defined, and we 
shall easily understand each other, and shall also be 
easily understood. 

I will first remark on what T. says respecting Rom, 
vi. 7. The following are his words : * As I had heard 
that Mr. B. thought that there would be no such state 
as that of future suffering for those who lived and died 
wicked, and did not repent, I was led to conclude that 
he considered the death spoken of in Rom. vi. 7, to 
mean- the extinction of animal life; when the body 
returns to the dust ; and it seems strange to me that 
any man of common sense, who could read that chap- 
ter with attention, should put that construction on the 
word dead, as there used.' T. then adds what he 
thinks the word dead means, and says, ' To me it 
appears to denote the effect of what (verse 6) Paul 
styles our old man being crucified wjth Christ, that 
the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth 
we should not serve sin ; and the grounds on which 



132 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

he exhorts the Romans to reckon themselves to be 
dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord.' Reply : If the whole of the 
apostle's statements and arguments, in this place, are 
founded on the literal death of Jesus Christ, then must 
it be granted, that the word dead^ in the 7th verse, 
means the extinction of animal life. That we may as* 
certain this, let us carefully examine the context. In 
the first verse the apostle states the following ques- 
tion : ' What shall we say then ? Shall we continue 
in sin, that grace may abound ? ' He then answers, in 
verse 2d, ' God forbid. How shall w^e that are dead 
to sin live any longer therein 1 ' Here comes in an 
important question, viz. How does the apostle show, 
that he and his believing brethren were dead to sin ? 
See the next words : 'Know ye not, that so many 
of us as were baptized^into Jesus Christ were bap- 
tized into his death ? ' What does the word death 
mean here ? I have no doubt that Mr. T. v/ill allow, 
that the word death here means the extinction of ani- 
mal life. The apostle is speaking of the death of 
Jesus Christ ; and I think no one will doubt that his 
death was the extinction of animal life. Let us read 
the apostle's conclusion. See verse 4th: * Therefore 
we are buried with him by baptism into death.' 1 ask 
again here, what death ? The answer continues : The 
extinction of animal life. See the text again ; ' That 
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
newness of life.' I ask again what does the word 
dead mean in this last quotation 1 The answer still 
continues, The extinction of animal life. We now 
come to verse 5th, in which the apostle continues his 
arguments as follows : ' For if we have been planted 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 133 

together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also 
in the likeness of his resurrection.' Whose death 
does the apostle here speak of? Answer, The death 
of Christ? What death of Christ? Answer, The ex- 
tinction of his animal life. Verse 6th : * Knowing this, 
that our old man is crucified with him.' How was 
Christ crucified ? Answer, He was literally put to 
death. See the text again ; * that the body of sin 
might be destroyed.' What body of sin ? Answer, 
That body which in death suffers the extinction of ani- 
mal life. * That henceforlh we should not serve sin.' 
That is, that we should not now be the servants of 
that body of flesh and blood, which is represented as 
destroyed, by the death and resurrection of Christ. 
Verse 7th : ^ For he that is dead is freed from sin.' 
It seems to be evident, beyond all dispute, that the 
word dead here means what the same word in the 
whole of the context means, viz. the extinction of 
animal life. The fact is — the apostle in the 7th verse 
expresses the grand maxim, on which his whole argu- 
ment rested, viz. that whoever was literally dead, was 
of course freed from sin. And for this very good rea- 
son, the body of sin being destroyed, sin could no 
longer exist. If sm exists after the body is destroyed, 
then I acknowledge that I see not the least sense in 
all the apostle has here said. 

In verses 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, the words dead^ 
death, and died are Ui^ed in the same sense as above, 
and, as I humbly conceive, in no other B(mse. 

After having been thus particular, I will ask Mr. T. 
to make a fair trial with the text in question, by taking 
it in the connexion in which it stands ; and leaving 
out of the question entirely, the idea of the extinction 
of animal life, from the meaning of the words death, 
12 



134 EXAMTXATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

dead, died, and see if he can make good sense of the 
apostle's argument. In the mean time I wish him to 
know, that I agree entirely with him, as it respects 
the object of the apostle's argument, under considera- 
tion. It evidently appears to have been the design of 
St. Paul, first, to set forth the great and important 
doctrine of the entire end of sin and condemnation, 
as is plainly expressed in the preceding chapter, par- 
ticularly in the following words : * Therefore, as by 
the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation ; even so, by the righteousness of one, 
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
life. — Moreover, the law entered that the offence might 
abound ; but w^here sin abounded, grace did much 
more abound : that as sin hath reigned unto death, 
even so might grace reign through righteousness unto 
eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.' Here note, — 
* Sin hath reigned unto death.* This affords the con- 
clusion, that it reigns no farther. And this agrees 
with verse 10th, in the Glh chapter : * FoV in that he 
died, he died unto siii once ; but in that he liveth, he 
liveth unto God.' The author now anticipates the 
opposer's objection ; that if this doctrine be allowed, 
we may continue in sin. To this objection he replies, 
as has been quoted : 'God forbid. How shall we, that 
are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? ' That is, how 
shall we, who believe in Jesus, v/ho has manifested 
the end of sin and condemnation, by his death and 
resurrection, now continue in sin ? The faith in 
which we rejoice, in which we reckon ourselves to be 
dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through 
Jesus Christ our Lord, must naturally subdue sin in 
us, that it shall not reign in our mortal bodies, that we 
should obey it in its lusts. This is the privilege. 



m 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 135 

which faith gives the believer in Christ, even a victory 
over sin in the present tense. And it is to the enjoy- 
ment of this high privilege, that the apostle endeavors 
to invite his brethren, by means of his arguments now 
under consideration. And I further agree with Mr. 
T. that the apostle alludes to these spiritual privileges 
in Eph. ii. 5. 

Taking my leave, for the present, of Rom. vi. 7, I 
pass to notice some more of Mr. T.'s remarks. He 
asks, with very great seeming confidence, whether 
any Christian dare assert, that one who dies in the 
very act of a most heinous crime is freed or justified 
from sin by his death 1 To this question, I think, he 
replies in the affirmative, as follows : ' As it is the 
case, that in the present course of events all men die, 
they become indeed inaccessible of either sin or righ- 
teousness till the resurrection.' And then he asks 
this very singular question : ' But does this alter their 
moral state 1 ' This question, I think, is very singu- 
lar. In the present state, all will allow^ that men 
may be active in sin or in righteousness. This Mr. 
T. will acknowledge. He says, that after death, until 
the resurrection, men are inaccessible of either sin or 
righteousness. Surely, then, their moral state is vastly 
different from what it is in this mortal life. If a man 
be inaccessible of sin, he must be innocent, at least ; 
and if a man be inaccessible of righteousness, he can- 
not be a subject of a moral law. It is plain, then, 
that this state must be ' free from sin,' for there is no 
sin in it. 

Having thus answered his most daring question 
with his own words, I will proceed to suggest a reply 
to the same question according as I think divine truth 
will fully justify. As sin had its origin in flesh and 



136 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

blood, and is the natural offspring of these lusts, by 
which men are tempted ; and as no intimation is given 
in the Scriptures, that sin ever was or ever will be 
committed out of flesh and blood ; and as we have 
seen, that St. Paul's meaning in Rom. vi. 7, is, that he 
that is dead literally is freed from sin, we venture to 
hope that sin will never exist after the present mortal 
state shall close. But we do not assert^ we only say, 
thus it appears to us. 

If Mr. T. will compare John v. 28, 29, with Daniel 
xii. 1, 2; and connect with both Matt. xxiv. 21, and 
context, it is uelieved that he may learn that he has 
applied the first passage wrongly, in the use he has 
made of it. 

The use he has made of Rom. ii. 16 seems as strange, 
to me, as it did to him, that a man of common sense 
should reason as I did. He quotes this passage as ap- 
plicable to a judgment after the resurrection. We will 
examine the text and the use he makes of it. He con- 
nects with verse 16, verse 6 to 10. See verse 12 : 
' For as many as have sinned without law, shall also 
perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in 
the law, shall be judged by the law.' What inter- 
venes between the I2th and 16th is a parenthesis. 
Read the 12th with the 16th, * in the day when God 
sball judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, ac- 
cording to my gospel.' What use does Mr. T. make 
of this judgment ? Answer; To condemn to punish-^ 
ment, after the resurrection, all who have sinned with- 
out law and all who have sinned in the law. See chap- 
ter iii. verses 23, 24 : ' For all have sinned and cottiQ 
short of the glory of God ; being justified freely by his 
grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.* 
By Mr. T/s rule, he condemns all men after the resur^ 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 137 

rection. By St. Paul's rule, he justifies all men, free- 
ly by God's grace. When was Paul judged ? Answer ; 
When the commandment came, when sin revived, and 
he died. When were the secrets of Paul judged? 
Answer ; When he was brought before the judgment- 
seat of Christ, as he journeyed to Damascus. Who- 
ever will read Romans 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. with any rea- 
sonable attention, will learn that it was the design of the 
author to represent all men, both Jews and Gentiles, in 
one condition of sin and condemnation, in the earthly 
Adam ; and likewise in one condition of justification 
in Jesus, who was delivered for our offences and was 
raised again for our justification. 

I deem it not necessary to extend this reply to Mr. 
T. to the length it would require, if I noticed all his 
particulars ; however, there is one subject more which 
I am unwilling to pass unnoticed. He says, — ' I am 
not surprised at the thousands who flock to hear Mr. 
Ballon. Many, no doubt from curiosity, and others 
from various motives ; but many will go to hear him or 
any other man who will preach that there will be no 
sufferings in a future state on account of sin. There 
are many thousands in the world who would be glad to 
find that doctrine established as truth. It would save 
them many a pang of terror ; which I believe impossi- 
ble to be done on Christian principles ; for Christians 
will still highly regard the testimony of divine revela- 
tion.' Although I know nothing of the man to whom 
I now. reply, only as I must judge by this fruit which he 
has placed before me, I must say that there are strong 
indications of the leaven of the Pharisee. If he did 
not think that he was a more holy man than the thou- 
sands of his fellow-citizens, of whom he speaks, in 
room of talking as he does, in the third person, he 
12* 



138 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

would speak in the first person, and say, — it would save 
me ^ many a pang.' But it seems, that in room of be- 
ing saved from one pang, by the idea that punishment 
will not extend into a future world, the very thought 
administers pain to his feelings. His language sounds 
much more like ^ God, I thank thee that lam not like 
other men/ than it does like ' God, be merciful to me 
a sinner.' What sort of characters must those be, 
who feel to rejoice in the sentiment, that the next state 
of existence will be free from sin, and free from pun- 
ishment ? Will Mr. T. pretend that those who are in 
love with sin can be gratified in believing, that they 
will sin but a few'moments longer ? Does he believe 
thatthose who hate their neighbors and who curse them 
in their hearts are those who felicitate themselves in 
the sentiment, that in a few moments they will see 
these neighbors in the enjoyment of inexpressible hap- 
piness ? Does Mr. T, believe, that it is the man, who 
would imbrue his hands in the blood of a brother, that 
rejoices to think that in a ^^\n moments he shall see 
this brother in perfect peace ? Will our brother T. in- 
form us, that he believes that all the bloody persecutors, 
who have wickedly tormented and burned their breth- 
ren at the stake for heresy, would have been saved 
many a pang ' could they have believed that the sub- 
jects of their mad fury were to suffer no punishment in. 
the future state ? Is it really the spirit of wickednes^s 
that takes pleasure in believing that all sin and wick- 
edness will soon come to an end % 

Mr. T.'s insinuation, that the thousands, who en- 
deavored to hear me in Philadelphia,* are so wicked, 

** This was written shortly after Mr. Ballou had preached in 
that city. 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 139 

that a belief that sin, wickedness, and misery will not 
exist in the future state, would ' save them many a 
pang,' is a plain indication that he does not under- 
stand the nature of the subject on which he writes. I 
hope he will not be offended if I venture to inquire a 
little concerning the nature of the spirit of opposition 
to the doctrine against which he contends. He may 
be assured, that there is nothing personal intended, as 
we are entirely unknown to each other. I am induced 
to do this, because he has attempted to make an unfa- 
vorable impression on the minds of his readers, res- 
pecting the characters and dispositions of those who 
differ from him on the subject of our present discus- 
sion. Let us ask,- then, what this spirit is opposed to 1 
Answer ; It is opposed to having sin end with this im- 
perfect state. It is opposed to having every son and 
daughter of Adam born into the kingdom of divine 
light and immortal love immediately after this mortal 
state ends. It is opposed to the discontinuance of 
misery after this state of sorrow and affliction is no 
more. This spirit, then, must feel inclined to favor 
the continuance of sin hereafter ; to favor also the 
continuance of moral darkness and the protraction, of 
misery beyond the resurrection. How long does this 
spirit desire the continuance of sin and misery 1 Here 
we stop, for we can see no limits. Is this the spirit 
which prays, — * Father, forgive them ? ' — And does it 
in the very sarne breath ask, ' Dare any Christian assert 
that the God of immaculate holiness will justify or ac- 
quit,' &/C.? If Mr. T. understood, that repentance and 
the remission of sins are both the gifts of the Prince 
and Saviour, he would not make the former a condi» 
tion of the latter. 



140 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

As my opposer indicates that I deny the testimony 
of Christ and his apostles, I here assure him, that if I 
do this, I do it ignorantly ; and I solemnly call on him 
to show me wherein I commit this wrong. He should 
consider, that his assertions prove nothing, and that I 
need evidence in order to be convinced. When he 
shall have proved, from the testimony of our blessed 
Saviour and his apostles, that after all that die in Ad- 
am are made alive in Christ, are raised in incorruption, 
in power, in glory, in a spiritual body, and immortal, 
sin and misery will still be continued, then will I ac- 
knowledge my error, and lament the everlasting sin 
and misery of man, h. b. 



(141 



ON THE SPIRITS IN PRISON. 

It is contended that the prophecy in the 16th of 
Ezekiel, of the return of the captivity of Sodom and 
her daughters to iheir former estate is proof that those 
inhabitants of Sodom, who were destroyed in the days 
of Abraham, were, at the time of the delivery of this 
prophecy, in a captive state in the world of spirits. — 
It is also contended that when Christ preached to the 
spirits in prison, who were disobedient in Noah's time, 
he likewise preached to those old Sodomites, and that 
this preaching was designed to set those free from their 
imprisonment and captivity, to whom Christ preached. 
According to all this, it appears to me, that the time of 
the restoration of Sodom and her daughters, is the 
time of Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison, 
which was before St. Peter wrote his epistle, in which 
the account of this preaching is recorded. — Now, if 
all these things be so, how will they make out the con- 
sistency of the prophecy in the 16th of Ezekiel ? That 
says, speaking to Jerusalem, — * When [ shall bring 
again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her 
daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daugh^ 
tersj then will I bring again the captivity of thy cap«^ 
lives in the midst of them.' How will they make it 
appear that Jerusalem and her daughters, Samaria and 
her daughters, and Sodom and her daughters were all 
returned from their captivities in the midst of each 
other, at the time when it is thought Christ preached 
to the spirits in prison ? In the prophecy alluded to^ 



142 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

it is said to Jerusalem, — ' Then thou shalt remember 
thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive 
thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger ; and I will 
give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy cov- 
enant. — And I will establish my covenant with thee ; 
and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.' Was this 
prophecy concerning Jerusalem fulfilled in the time of 
St. Peter ? 

Our Saviour said, see Matt. xi. 24, speaking to Ca- 
pernaum, — ' But I say unto you, that it shall be more 
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment 
than for thee.' Now according to the sentiments of 
those who maintain the doctrine of future punishment, 
this day of judgment, of which Christ spoke to the city 
of Capernaum, has not yet taken place, but will take 
place after the general resurrection. But if the old 
Sodomites were delivered from hell when Peter says 
Christ preached to the spirits in prison, how is it that 
Sodom, after being in the prison of hell, from the time 
of Abraham until after the crucifixion of Christ, and 
then delivered from this awful captivity by Christ's 
preaching, are still, after the general resurrection, to be 
brought to judgment, to be rewarded according to their 
works while they lived and sinned in the flesh ? 

Should they succeed in making all these matters 
clear, how will they finally apply this prophecy in Eze- 
kiel to a state of man's existence, between this mortal 
state and that immortal state'of which St. Paul speaks 
in 1 Cor. xv. What is meant by Sodom's daughters? 
What is meant by Samaria's daughters 1 And what 
is meant by Jerusalem's daughters 1 When I read of 
Sodom and her daughters, I suppose I read of Sodom 
and other cities which were dependent on her ; and 
wh^n I read of Samaria and her daughters, I think I 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 143 

read of Samaria and other cities which were depend- 
ent on her ; aad when I read of Jerusalem and her 
daughters, I think I am reading of Jerusalem and 
other cities, which were dependent on this metropolis 
of Jadea. But I do not understand such language at 
all, if applied to a future state. Nor can I discern 
how they will finally explain the prophecy on which 
they so much rely, in respect to Sodom and her daugh- 
ters and Samaria and her daughters being given to Je- 
rusalem for daughters, in a future state. 

One query more', and I have done for the present. 
Wakefield renders the passage as follows ; see 1 Peter 
iii. 17—20 : * For it is better that ye suflfer, if this be 
the will of God, for well doing than for doing ill ; be- 
cause even Christ once suffered for sin, a righteous 
man for unrighteous men, that he might bring us unto 
God ; being killed in body, but made alive by the spir- 
it; in which indeed he went and preached to the minds 
of men in prison ; who were also hard to be convinced 
in former times ; as when the patience of God contin- 
ued waiting in the days of Noah, while the ark was 
preparing ; wherein so kw as eight lives were saved 
on the water.^ In this translation there is nothing 
hinted of Christ's preaching to the spirits of those who 
lived in Noah's time ; and yet this passage is regarded 
as the sheet-anchor of this dismal doctrine of future 
punishment. 



(144) 



THOUGHTS ON THE DOCTRINE 
OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 

This is a subject of a very peculiar nature. It in- 
volves considerations so weighty, of such vast moment, 
and so complicate and difficult of discussion and deci- 
sion, that it seems almost to forbid the mind's approach, 
and admonishes most solemnly against indulging any 
prepossessions or party feelings, which too often grow 
from early habits of inconsiderate thinking, and from 
some circumstances of a local or personal nature. 

The writer of this has no disposition to interpose in 
the discussions which have appeared in theMauazine; 
he chooses that the writers who are engaged should 
proceed uninterruptedly. Yet if he could be allowed 
to suggest a hint that if they should see cause to treat 
a subject of such vast importance with less apparent 
evasion, and with more solemnity and sound argument, 
and not give offence, he would deem it a privilege ; for 
although it was suggested, some time past, that much 
had been written on this subject, which was thought 
not to be very satisfactory to the public, it really seems 
that what has been written since has not evinced any 
material improvement. Of this, however, let others 
judge. 

My own reflections on this great question are so nu- 
merous, that it would be vain to attempt a systematic 
exposition of the whole, in a communication suitably 
limited for the paper. It will be necessary, therefore, 
to confine myself to one particular question, viz. Is it 



OP FUfURE RETRIBUTION. 145 

possible to bring the subject of a future day of judg- 
ment, in another world, at which trial all men \Vill be 
judged according to their works in this life, and then 
recompensed according to the same, to our understand- 
ings, and make this retribution, at the same time, con- 
sist in the entire and complete happiness of some, and 
in the real and positive misery of others 1 

If I use my reason on this question, I must say, 
that it appears to me utterly impossible. The oppo- 
sers of Universal Salvation contend that such a judg- 
ment resulting in such retribution is clearly set forth 
in the Scriptures, and that this retribution will be 
endless. Universalists have contended that such a 
supposition is unreasonable, because it is not under- 
stood how it can be possible for such a division to be 
made of the human family, and for one part to be en- 
tirely happy, and the other entirely miserable ; because 
our nature partakes of such powerful sympathies that 
if we see those whom we love in torment, we cannot 
avoid a participation of such misery. The reply to 
this has been, that the blessed will see that the tor- 
ments of the miserable are for the glory of God, and 
therefore will rejoice in it ; but this has- never satisfied 
the minds of Universalists. Now it seems that those 
Universalists, who believe, with their opposers, in the 
doctrine of this future judgment and retribution, need 
some method to answer this objection. They hold to 
the same judgment, to the same rewards and punish- 
ments as do those who believe in endless misery, only 
they hold, that after, what they call in scripture lan- 
guage, everlasting^ forever and ever, and eternal, has 
passed away, there will be an end to the torments of 
hell. The weighty question with me is, how is it pos- 
sible for one class of mankind to be entirely blessed 
13 



146 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

in heaven, during these everlasting ages, and yet 
know, at the same time^ that not only their feliow- 
beings are in misery, but that their nearest connexions 
are suffering these dreadful torments 1 

A hope is entertained, that no one will indulge a 
thought, that my question is moved with a desire to 
perplex honest minds, or to trifle on a subject of this 
solemn nature. I am a man considerably advanced 
in life, have infirmities of body, which warn me that I 
must before long go the way of all the earth ; and I 
have a large family round me, whose happiness is, in 
my mind, identified with my own ; I, therefore, need 
to be informed, before I subscribe to this belief, of a 
future separation of the human family, how it can 
be reconciled with reason and the law of our common 
nature. Those who earnestly contend for this awful 
division of mankind in the future world, profess to 
believe that we shall hereafter retain a perfect recol- 
lection of our connexion and our actions in this life ; 
and this appears necessary, in order to subject the 
wicked to punishment ; but then if this be the case, 
and if companions, parents and children, brothers and 
sisters, and all the dearest connexions in this life are, 
in millions of instances, to be separated, as represent- 
ed in the accounts which are given of this future judg- 
ment^ how can one class be entirely happy and see 
the other class in the torments of hell ? 

Should any serious, friendly person think the ques- 
tion which I have here stated, deserves a candid an- 
swer, and if such a friend will favor me with a solu- 
tion of it, he will confer a great favor, and merit the 
gratitude of h b 



(147) 



TO A FRIEND, 

WHO SIGNED HIMSELF ^ RATIONALIS. ' 

Dear Sir, — You inform me that my questions, to 
which you have attempted to reply, do not appear to 
you ' to he phrased to meet the doctrine, against which 
they are directed, in the most favorable light.' But to 
me it is evident, that you have made a mistake. My 
questions relate to the doctrine of future punishment, 
which writers have endeavored to describe, and which 
you express in the following words : * Some have be- 
lieved, that the future punishment of the wicked would 
be most intolerable in degree, consisting in literal Jire 
and brimstone, and endure for ages of ages.' This, 
sir, is the doctrine to which ray queries relate, as every 
one must know, by the words to which you have ob- 
jected. You do not object to these words because they 
are incoherent with the doctrine of future punishment, 
as laid down by authors, who have endeavored to de- 
scribe it, by the application of the words, in scripture, 
forever and ever, everlasting, eternal damnation, Jire 
and brimstone, S^c, S^c, But you object to my words, 
because they are not well chosen to express your * in- 
dividual views, in the most favorable light.' 

Is it possible, dear sir, that candor can justify you in 
finding fault with my words, because they do not ex- 
press your ' individual views, in the most favorable 
light?' You acknowledge that authors, who have 
treated on the doctrine of future punishment, have jus- 
tified the words of mine, to which you object. Why 



148 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

then object to my words, everlasting ages, entirely 
miserable ? 

If you are an unbeliever in the above doctrine of 
future punishment, and possess the candor which you 
expect me to exercise, why do you not join with me in 
endeavoring to explode it, and thereby assist in reliev- 
ing people^s minds from views of God^s dealings, with 
his creatures, which are dishonorable to his ever bless- 
ed character, and tormenting to rational beings 1 But, 
sir, in room of this, you say, — ' For my own part, al- 
though I believe in the existence of misery beyond 
death, I can form no definite idea of its nature or du- 
ration.' The question then necessarily occurs : If you 
have no definite idea of its duration, why do you ob- 
ject to the words which authors have used to express 
its duration ? And again ; If you can form no definite 
idea of its nature, why do you object to such terms as 
authors have used to express it 1 According to your 
own statement, I see not why you should object to the 
idea of future punishment for millions of millions of 
ages, nor do I see why you should object to the idea 
of entire torment in literal fire and brimstone. But, 

You seem to express a desire, that your ' individual 
views should be expressed in the most favorable light/ 
And therefore you object to those terms which carry 
the idea of a very long duration, and of a very severe 
torment. But how aie we to know that such words do 
not express the doctrine in the most favorable light ? — 
But if I use the utmost candor, and allow you the 
course to which you certainly seem to invite me, what 
would be the most favorable light in which to express 
your views of the doctrine in question, respecting the 
duration of future torment and its degree ? The an^ 
swer is easily discovered. If you believe that thosQ 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 149 

terms which represent this duration and degree to be 
very long and severe, are terms which represent the 
doctrine in the most unfavorable light, then terms 
which will represent it of the shortest possible duration 
and of the least possible degree, will suit you exactly, 
and represent your * individual views in their most fa- 
vorable light.' But, 

Dear sir, what will this gloomy doctrine of future 
punishment be reduced to, in this way of calculating 
it ? The duration of an electric shock will form its 
utmost period, and the slightest degree of inconve- 
nience comprehend all its misery. 

By what goes before, dear sir, you will learn that I 
think you have reasoned inconsistently, and that in 
room of answering my queries, you have denied the 
doctrine to which they refer. 

You say, — ' The proper light in which the doctrine 
that you oppose, ought to stand, is, that men will be 
treated in a future state according to the character in 
which they leave this,' Here again it is evident that 
you made a mistake. My queries had no reference to 
this statement. My queries regarded the entire misery 
of one class of mankind in the future world, and the 
entire happiness of the other class, and asked whether 
this is according to men's works in this life ? 

Though I need not reply to your answers, as they 
do not regard my questions, in the least, yet I will 
make a ^ew remarks, that you may understand what I 
conceive to be their merit. 

You think that, as the saints in heaven, and espec- 
ially Jesus Christ, know that people here on earth are 
miserable, and as this knowledge does not deprive them 
of felicity, — as they know that all which is suffered here 
is for the good of those who suffer, — so they may know 
13* 



150 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

that people are miserable after death, and not thereby 
be deprived of happiness, as they know that what is 
suffered there is equally for the good of the sufferers. — 
You do not allow that particular attachments for con- 
nexions will exist in heaven : so that you think, that 
what of my question relates to this may be omitted. 
Now as you have taken the signature, Rationalis, 
you will indulge me in an attempt to reason with you. 
Is it reasonable, sir, to believe, that the blessed Jesus, 
who so tenderly wept with mourners, and in prospect 
of the dreadful sufferings which he knew would soon 
come on the Jews, has, ever since his ascension, had a 
perfect knowledge of all the sufferings of men in this 
world, without one sympathetic feeling? You con- 
tend that his knowledge that all human sufferings are 
for the good of those who suffer, is the reason why his 
happiness is not eclipsed by these sufferings; but I 
ask, was he ignorant of this fact when he wept over 
Jerusalem ? I further ask if it be reasonable to be- 
lieve, that St. Paul, Who once said he had great heav- 
iness and sorrow of heart for his brethren according 
to the flesh, has, ever since his departure from this 
world, had a perfect knowledge of their sufferings, 
without the least sorrow for them 1 If you say that he 
knows that all their sufferings are for their good, I ask, 
was he ignorant of this when he expressed his sorrow 
for them ? But why do you not allow that the saints 
in heaven have particular attachments for their respec- 
tive connexions ? If you are willing to allow that death 
effects so great a change as to disannul all those tender 
attachments which parents and children feel in this 
life, I should think you. might allow it to disannul all 
inclination to sin. But, sir, are you aware that you 
disallow the saints in heaven as kind affections as you 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 151 

allow the damned in hell ? You insist on applying the 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus to the states of 
the miserable and happy in the future world ; and you 
must remember that the rich man in hell prayed for 
his five brethren, that they might not come into his 
place of torment. 

Your attempt to do away the difficulty, suggested 
in one of my queries, respecting but two classes in the 
future world, is a denial of the common doctrine of fu- 
ture punishment ; and it evidently reduces the idea of 
the future states of the righteous and the wicked, to no 
greater dissimilarity than exists in the present world. 
As you contend that the future happiness of the righ- 
teous and the future misery of the wicked will both be 
varied as the characters of men vary in this world, you 
present just such a world to our view, for the future 
state, as this world is, only you do not say whether sin 
will exist there or not. In one word, dejar sir, if I 
were to make up an opinion from what you have writ- 
ten on this subject, the name o{ future misery is all 
for which you feel any concern. But if you are desir- 
ous of giving me any instruction which may turn 
to my profit, respecting this subject, I humbly desire 
you to state what you think I ought to believe, and then 
be careful that you prove it by either reason or scrip- 
ture, or both ; and thereby oblige your ever faithful 
friend and brother, h. b. 



(152) 



AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT CON- 
SIDERED. 

As it is contended, by the advocates of a state of 
imperfection and misery, in the future world, for those 
who leave this in a state of ignorance of the gospel, 
and unreconciliation to God, that unless there be a 
dispensation of retribution and discipline hereafter, 
Jesus Christ cannot be the Saviour of such, I propose 
to suggest some thoughts relative to so weighty a 
subject. 

The writer of this entertains a hope, that his breth- 
ren, who may not agree with him in all those particu- 
lars, will consider that he is only endeavoring to inves- 
tigate and inquire into things which have not been 
understood in the Christian church, and about which 
little or nothing has been believed, except what has 
rested on the mere force of tradition alone. He feels 
no disposition to require of others their implicit assent 
to what he may suggest ; but is desirous of contribut- 
ing a mite to the promotion of useful inquiry, which 
may lead to profitable understanding. 

Let us, at this time, confine our investigation to the 
following question : If one who goes out of this world 
ignorant of Jesus Christ, and inexperienced in that 
reconciliation to God, which a knowledge of the gos- 
pel effects in the soul, commences his sentient exist- 
ence in the future state, in an immortal constitution, 
in which no temptation to sin will even try the soul ; 
but where the true light of divine wisdom will direct 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 153 

every thought, and fix tlie affections entirely on the 
beauties and glory of infinite goodness, by which the 
sweetest and most tranquil felicity will be enjoyed, — 
how then is Jesus Christ the Saviour of this subject? 

It is true that there are many other important ques- 
tions which relate to this general subject, some of 
which the writer of this may hereafter notice ; but the 
above particular question will engage his attention for 
the present. 

In order to answer this question, it seems necessary, 
in the first place, to present to the reader the charac- 
ters, in which the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ, 
as the Saviour of mankind. We may not notice all 
the emblems, used in scripture, for this purpose, but 
some of the most important. The most important 
character in which Jesus Christ is held forth, in the 
Scriptures, as the eternal life of the human family, as 
is humbly believed, is expressed in the words of the 
Saviour, recorded in John xi. 25 : ' Jesus saith unto 
her, I am the resurrection and the life.' In 1 Cor. i. 
24^ St, Paul informs us that the Christ which he 
preached, is the ' power of God and the wisdom of 
God.' In John xiv. 6, Jesus says, — * I am the way, 
the truth, and the life.' In Ileb. i. 3, the Saviour is 
called the * brightness of God's glory, and the express 
image of his person.' It may not be necessary, for 
our present purpose, to cite more passages ; the reader, 
however, can have recourse to many more. Let us 
now select a few words, from the above quotations, 
and contemplate our Saviour in the characters which 
those words indicate ; and then a(>ply those characters 
to the subject of our inquiry. Resurrection, life, 

POWER OF god, wisdom OF GOD, THE TRUTH, BRIGHT- 
NESS OF god's GLORY^ and the EXPRESS IMAGE OF 



154 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

HIS PERSON. According to vvhvit we have now before 
us, Jesus Christ, in the all-wise system of God, our 
Creator, is oiir resurrection, our life; to us he is the 
power and wisdom of God ; to us he is the truth, and 
the brightness of God's glory, and the only image in 
which we can behold the invisible God. 

The subject of our inquiry is one who left this mor- 
tal state without faiih in Christ, and, of course, with- 
out that reconciliation to God. which such faith pro- 
du^^es. And our question is, How is Jesus Christ the 
Saviour of such an one, if he is raised into an immor- 
tal happy state, hereafter, without first passing through 
another imperfect slate? Answer: Just as he would 
be if this subject should pass through another imper- 
fect state. For tlien, even after ages of ages of misery 
and sin, if such vver.e his lot, thai miserable state, like 
our.present mortal state, must pass away, and our sub- 
ject would, after all, entirely depend on Jesus Christ 
for a resurrection into a state of immortality and eter- 
nal life. Yes ; Jesus must, after all, be our resurrec- 
tion and our life ; he must be to us all, the wisdom 
and the power of God ; he must be to us the truth, 
and the bright mirror in which we may behold the 
glory of the invisible God. 

In 1 Cor. XV. 22, St. Paul says ; ' For as in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' In 
this most important sense, Jesus Christ is the eternal 
life of the world. In this all-important sense, Jesus 
Christ is the same to the millions of the human race, 
who have lived and died in heathen lands and coun- 
tries, as he is to th.ose, who, in this world, have enjoyed 
the light of divine revelation, and the obedience of 
faith. In this sense also, he is the same to the mil- 
lions of infants, who have had their birth in Christian 



OP FUTUIIE IIETRIBUTION, 155 

communities, but have been called from this mortal 
existence, before ihey were capable of being initiated 
into the mysteries of the gospel. 

Those uho find it diliiculi to understand how Jesus 
Christ is the Saviour of those who die in a state of un- 
belief, unless they experience a state hereafter, of pun* 
ishment, ought to consider how their views can be con- 
sistent with the fact, that Jesus Christ is the Saviour 
of those who die in infancy. If the question labors, 
how Jesus Christ can save without bringing the sub- 
ject of his favor to enjoy himself, through the medium 
of faith and repentance, let tiie question apply to those 
who die in infancy. How can they, in the future 
world, be brought to repentance, unless they sin in 
that state, as they have comn)itted no sin in this ? But 
faith is needed only in a state of anticipation, which 
state is imperfect, and repentance is necessary only 
in a state where sin exists, which is also imperfect. 

It should be duly considered, that the method bj 
which faith and repentance are produced, in the pres- 
ent imperfect state, is by the manifestation of divine 
realities to the understanding. When these divine 
realities are manifested, through the medium of their 
proper evidence, it is then that we believe the truth ; 
which truth was just the same before we believed it, 
as it is afterward. And the divine goodness which 
appears in those facts in which we believe, naturally 
leads us to repentance ; because there is something 
infinitely better in these good things of the kingdom 
of God, than in any thing of which we before had 
possession. But if our ideas of the future state of 
man be conformable to the testimony of St. Paul in 
1 Cor. XV. in which we are certified, that the state in 
which all men will be made alive in the resurrection, 



156 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

is Christ, who is the resurrection and the life, it seems 
unreasonable to believe that faith and repentance will 
be necessary in that slate. Respecting our resurrec- 
tion into that immortal state, the apostle says, in the 
chapter referred to above, — ' It is sown in corruption, 
it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dishonor, it 
is raised in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised 
in power ; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spi- 
ritual body. The first man is of the earth, earthy ; 
the second man is the Lord from heaven — and as we 
have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear 
the image of the heavenly.' All Christian people be- 
lieve, that for our enjoyment of divine things, in this 
state of existence, it is necessary that we believe in 
this divine system of eternal life, which is manifested 
through the resurrection of Jesus ; and that this faith 
should be productive of emendation of life ; but that 
this faith or any of its consequences will be necessary 
in a state of immortality, perhaps we have no more 
authority for believing, than we have for believing that 
such faith is necessary for Christ himself, in that im- 
mortal state. 

It seems important that we notice, that the apostle, 
in the foregoing quotation, speaks of two men, the 
first and the second. The first is of the earth, and is 
earthy ; the second is the Lord from heaven. And he 
says, — ' As we have borne the image of the earthy, we 
shall also bear the image of the heavenly.' He does 
not present us with a man between these two, which 
is neither earthy nor heavenly, in the image of which 
we are to exist, and suffer for our sins committed in 
the earthy man, for a season, before we arc introduced 
into the image of the heavenly. But it seems abso- 
lutely necessary to suppose a third, or rather a middle 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 157 

man, state, or constitution, which is neither earthy nor 
heavenly, in order to maintain the opinion, that, after 
this life is ended, the greatest part of the human family 
are to undergo a dispensation of punishment, before 
they are made alive in Christ, according to the apos- 
tle's representation, above noticed. 

Whether the foregoing suggestions are accepted as 
being entirely consistent with the gospel, or not, a hope 
is entertained that they will not be considered as sub- 
versive of the gospel, or as excluding Jesus Christ from 
being the Saviour of all men. H. B, 

14 



(158) 



ON JUDGING OF OURSELVESe 

* YEA, AND WHY EVEN OF YOURSELVES JUDGE YE NOT 
WHAT IS RIGHT ? \ LUKE XII. 57. 

If we consider ourselves as addressed by these words, 
we must necessarily suppose that we are furnished, not 
only with the ability, but also the means to form a cor- 
rect judgment of what is right. The variety and ex- 
tent of subject, to which our minds might be led by the 
words which head this communication, are unlimited ; 
but the design of the writer has fixed on the particular 
subject of the moral tendency of true and false doc- 
trine. 

There is no one statement which the friends of a 
particular doctrine can make, which, if believed, more 
commends it than to assert that it leads to virtuous 
conduct and to moral life ; while on the other hand, 
about the worst thing that can be said against a doc- 
trine, and which mostly renders it odious, is that it dis- 
regards the moral distinction between virtue and vice, 
and flatters its blinded votary to follow the latter with 
hope of impunity. The weight which these statements 
have in people's minds is an argument in favor of the 
respect which is paid to virtue, and the detestation in 
which vice is justly held ; and this very consideration 
should be admitted as a convincing argument that we 
ought not to impose on virtuous minds v/ith a prepos- 
terous use of those statements. That is, we should be 
cautious that we do not hastily and incorrectly brand 
a doctrine with vicious tendency, until it is most clear 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 159 

and evident that it is worthy of this condemning char- 
acter. For instance ; if my neighbor differ from me 
in sentiment, and I have no reason to find fault with 
his morals, it would seem to be very improper for me 
to tell him that his doctrine leads to immoral conduct. 
If a doctrine be immoral in its tendency, it will pro- 
duce immoral conduct in those who sincerely believe 
it ; it has no tendency at all in those who do not be* 
lieve it. 

The enemies of universal grace and salvation have, 
for many years, earnestly contended that this doctrine 
naturally leads to every species of wickedness, and 
people in general have believed that this was verily the 
case; and yet, against all this w-eight of opposition, the 
doctrine, thus defamed has marvellously prevailed, so, 
that now there are thousands who believe it,, living to- 
gether in all the virtues and harmonies of social life j 
meeting together every sabbath, in immense crow^ds to 
worship the merciful Father of the spirits of all flesh. 
Their countenances indicate the feelings of their 
hearts, and joy and peace are their constant compan- 
ions. — And, refusing to pass judgment ourselves, we 
are perfectly willing to leave it to our opposers to de- 
cide whether our order will suffer by a comparison with 
any other denomination in Christendom. But if what 
has been stated were true, a very large proportion of 
our citizens, who are respectable for both piety and 
morality, would now have been wallowing in all man- 
ner of filthiness, shut up in prisons, or would have 
ended their miserable career on the public scaffold ! 

The foregoing particulars are noticed, that we may 
see the impropriety of calling a doctrine licentious in 
its tendency, while we acknowledge that its sincere be- 
lievers are the best of moralists. If we follow the in^ 



160 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

junction of our text, and judge, from experience and 
observation, we shall say, as did the divine teacher : 
' Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of this- 
tles/ 

But we must do something on the subject of theory, 
and we must reason from the nature of things, allowing 
every principle its natural inference and every cause 
its necessary effect. Be it so : we ask then, * What 
shall we reason but from what we know ? ^ The theo- 
ry of our opposers says, that the fear of punishment in 
the future world is certainly necessary in order to in- 
duce people to be virtuous in this ; and they contend, 
that if this fear is removed, all restraint ceases, and the 
subject plunges headlong into vice. But stop — is it not 
acknowledged that we see many cases around us of 
sterling virtue in those who believe in no future pun- 
ishment 1 Why, my brother, will you contend for a 
theory. which your very senses condemn? If I should 
say that a certain kind of food was of pernicious con- 
sequence to a man's sight, and that I was personally 
knowing to more than fifty people who ate freely of it 
every day, and whose sight has grown stronger ever 
since they used this food, should I not state a very 
great absurdity 7 But my brother desires me to avoid 
matter of fact, and confine myself to speculative theory. 
But this I will not do, because it is in this way that 
people who have all the means of judging what is right, 
blunder about in the dark, and form the most absurd 
theories imaginable. No, brother, I will reason on this 
subject as I reason on all others, when I am favored 
with experience and facts lo reason from. Now I 
know what it is that induces me to walk in the habits 
which I have established ; and 1 am entirely certain. 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 161 

that the fear of punishment in a future world ha,s noth- 
ing to do in the affair. 

Let us reason here as we endeavor to learn a science, 
by beginning with incipient principles, and then ad- 
vance as we are assisted. We may begin with our ap- 
petites. Why do we take pains and be at expense lo 
suit our food to our taste 7 Is it because we fear a 
state of retribution in a future world t No ; but be- 
cause we desire the satisfaction of our appetite. Why 
do we expend so much money for our clothing ; not 
only to render it comfortable, but pleasing to the eye 1 
Is all this for fear of future punishment 1 No. Look 
at and calculate the immense expenses which are de- 
voted to erect our dwellings, and to furnish them, and 
ask whether it be the fear of future punishment which 
induces all this vast expense ? The answer is. No. In- 
quire next concerning the expenses which are laid out 
for the maintenance of our companions and children, 
and the support of social friendship in society, and ask 
if this incalculable expense is for fear of punishment 
herafter ? The answer is, No. So we might proceed, 
and we should find that our inducements are the en- 
joyments which we contemplate in the possession of 
the various objects of our pursuits ; and that the fear 
of punishment in another world has nothing to do with 
these things. 

Will any reasonable person undertake to say, that 
people would be more likely to prepare their food to 
suit their taste if they were afraid of being tormented 
hereafter if they did not 1 Or, will any one contend, 
that it would be profitable to superadd to all the in- 
ducements, which influence people to the various ac- 
quisitions above noticed, the fear of being punished in 
a future state ? None will contend for this ; but why 
14* 



162 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE, ETC. 

do they not 1 The answer is, the things to which we 
have alluded, have in themselves attractions sufficient 
to induce people to strive, to the extent of their means, 
to obtain them. Then I would humbly ask what that 
object is that we ought to attain, which, not having 
within itself sufficient worth to induce us to acquire it, 
needs the assistance of the fear of hell in a future state, 
to engage your attention to it ? Brother, I ask you, 
what it is 1 Are you willing to tell me that it is mor- 
al VIRTUE 1 I humbly beseech you not to say it. No 
man would ever say this, unless he were morally deli- 
rious. To a rational mind, with a clear understand- 
ing, there is nothing so valuable, nothing so sweet, 
nothing so lovely as moral virtue. This is the very 
life of the reasonable soul. 

Need/ea?' compel me to behold 

A beauteous form and neat ? 
Or must the hungry man be told 

Of hell, to make hi meat?- 

Talk we of sweetness to the taste^ 

Or beauty to the eye ? 
Pure virtue's flavor is the best, 

Most brilliant to its dye. 

Hast thou, my .son, her lovely form 

Seen, in a mirror bright ? 
All other beauties treat with scorn, 

But make her thy delight. 

Around thy neck, like chains of gold. 

Her mildest rays shall shine, 
And to thy longing heart unfold 

Her treasures all divine. H. B. 



(168) 



REPLY TO A FRIEND, 

WHO HAD ADDRESSED THE AUTHOR CERTAIN QUERIES, 

Sir, — You do yourself much honor by your very 
candid remarks on the subject of future recompense^ 
as that subject has been represented in some of my 
writings. You appear very ingenuous in acknowledg- 
ing the rationality of the proposition, as by me stated ; 
and on my part I am very free to allow, that, however 
plausible a proposition may, at first view, appear to us, 
it well becomes christian humilky to regard such prop- 
osition vi^ith every scruple which the divine testimony 
necessarily suggests. There is, sir, another consider- 
ation, relative to subjects like the one under examina- 
tion, to which, I think, some regard ought to be paid ; 
and that is, when a proposition appears reasonable and 
no other objection can be brought against it, only that 
a solitary passage of scripture appears to oppose it, it, 
at least, deserves a question whether bj the force of 
tradition, or some other cause, we have not contracted 
a wrong habit of construing such passage ? 

I presume that it did not occur to you, that the word 
i^esmTection in Luke xiv. 14, could possibly mean any 
thing but a resurrection from death to an immortal con- 
stitution and state. Of course, you observe^ ' If there 
had been ambiguity in the phraseology of the above 
text, I should not have addressed you upon the sub- 
ject.' But the fact is, this word does not uniformly, 
inrthe scriptures, apply to an immortal state. See 
Parkhurst on the Greek word ^ Anastasis, from Anas- 



164 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

teemi, to rise. 1. A standing on the feet again, or ris- 
ing, as opposed to falling. It occurs, though figura- 
tively, in this view, Luke ii. 34. 2. A rising or res- 
urrection of a dead body to life. Heb. xi. 35. Com- 
pare 1 Kg. xvii. 21 ; 2 Kg. iv. 34. 3. A rising or res- 
urrection of the body from the grave. Applied both 
to Christ, and to men in general, whether good or 
bad.' 

When Simeon said to the mother of Jesus, Luke ii. 
34, ^ This child is set for. the fall and rising (anastasin) 
again of many in Israel,' we have no reason to suppose 
that he spoke of a resurrection into an immortal state ; 
but that he had reference to changes in the condition 
of the house of Israel, in this mutable state is alto- 
gether probable. 

Being satisfied that this word, resurrection^ is va- 
riously applied in the scriptures, it seems not unrea- 
sonable to suppose, that the Saviour, in giving neces- 
sary instructions, and in holding out suitable incen- 
tives to that genuine charity, which is free from os- 
tentation, should signify that state or condition to 
which such modest worth will most assuredly raise its 
votary, by the phrase, resurrection of the just. 

Within the circle of our observation, it is frequent- 
ly seen, that virtue for a season wears the yoke of op- 
pression, and that genuine worth is treated with con- 
temptuous neglect. But how very transitory are all 
the vaporings of ostentation ! We need not go into a 
future state of existence before we can find virtue's 
ample reward. Remember the triumphs of virtue, 
which raised Joseph, in Egypt, to authority and com- 
mand, and which rendered unto him the due recom- 
pense which corresponded to his sufferings and righ- 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 165' 

teousness. Whenever genuine virtue triumphs over 
its enemies, then is the resurrection of the just, and 
then is his full recompense received. 

You will be so good, sir, as to indulge some queYies 
respecting the passage in Luke, which you quote, as 
your remarks apply it. Luke xiv. 13, 14 .• ' But, when 
thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the 
lame, the blind ; and thou shalt be blessed ; for they 
cannot recompense thee ; for thou shalt be recompens- 
ed at the resurrection of the just.' If this resurrection 
mean a resurrection into an immortal state, I then ask 
what the recompense is to be ? Whatever can be 
called a recompense must correspond with that for 
which it is a recompense. Is this recompense the im- 
mortal state or constitution ? or is it some peculiar 
privilege which some in that state will enjoy, of which 
others will be destitute ? No one will contend that 
the immortal state and its general blessedness are to 
be obtained only by the rich, who are able to feed the 
poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind ; for this would 
exclude all these from that blissful state. And what 
propriety could there be in supposing, that those who 
are able in this world, to feed the poor, the maimed, 
the lame, the blind, who are to be forever excluded 
from divine favor, are to be eternally rewarded with 
life and immortality therefor 1 But this idea never 
came into the mind of those who apply this text agree- 
ably to your remarks ; and yet it is very evident, that 
the recompense, spoken of in the text, is something 
which those who feed the poor, the maimed, the lame, 
the blind, are to receive for so doing, not a recompense 
which these who are thus fed are to receive. It, there- 
fore, appears evident, that if the recompense, mention- 



166 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

ed in the text, be anything which respects the future 
state of existence, it must be something which is not 
to be enjoyed by all the blessed in that state. The 
question then remains, What is this recompense to be*? 
It cannot be the^ resurrection itself, because those poor 
people who are, in this world, fed by the rich, will, no 
doubt, some of them at least, be partakers of that 
resurrection. It cannot be a permanent state of ho- 
liness, because those who are thus fed by the rich, in 
this world, m.ay obtain this holiness. 

In this world, it is easy to see and understand how 
those who feed the poor, &c. enjoy a blessing and a 
recompense of which the poor are destitute ; for ' it is 
more blessed to give than to receive.^ But in order 
to carry this recompense into the eternal state, it will 
be necessary to grant to some, in heaven, enjoyments 
of which others can never partake ; and, of course, 
this will give to some an infelicity from which others 
will be exempt. 

It has already been remarked, that whatever is a 
recompense must correspond with that for which it is a 
recompense. If divines would keep this evident fact 
in mind and duly regard it, they would not, as they 
constantly do, preposterously hold up an immortal 
state of endless felicity as a recompense for momenta- 
ry virtues practised in this life. To understand the 
passage in Luke, as tradition has taught, to mean a 
recompense of endless happiness in an immortal con- 
stitution, is to call that a recompense, which is infi- 
nitely greater than that for which it is supposed to be 
a recompense. And it is worthy of notice, that, when 
treating^on the subject of divine grace, and the gift of 
God, which is eternal life, our divines exclude the 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 167 

merit of good works entirely. So they go on, con- 
founding things v/hich ought to be kept distinct, and 
contradicting, when treating one subject, all which they 
contend for, when treating on another. 

Hoping these suggestions may satisfy one who exer- 
cises the candor which appears in your communica- 
tion, they are submitted for your consideration, with 
sentiments of due respect, H, B, 



(168) 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 

As the subject of a future state of retribution has 
received much attention, and as considerable ability 
has been employed^ both to maintain and refute the 
doctrine, from scripture authority ; and as I feel well 
satisfied, for one, that the Bible teaches no such doc- 
trine, it seems proper that Ishould endeavor to be able, 
if possible, to give a satisfactory answer to such ques- 
tions as are suggested, and such as the subject, in con- 
junction with the prejudices of education, is calculated 
to elicit. 

If in attending to anything of this nature I should 
be led to discover that my present convictions are not 
so well supported as I now think them to be, it will 
be my duty, and I hope I should not shrink from it, 
to acknowledge the fact, in^ as public a manner as I 
have made known my present belief. 

The reason why I am now particularly inclined to 
notice some objections which are suggested, is because 
these are now more relied on to prevent people from 
giving up the doctrine of a future state of punishment 
than any quotations which are brought from the scrip- 
tures, which we acknowledge to be our only infallible 
guide. It appears very evident, that all those passa- 
ges, which have been generally applied to a state of 
retribution, in a future world, are capable, to say the 
least, of an application which finds their accomplish- 
ment in the present mode of existence. And it seems 
that those who feel engaged in supporting the former 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 169 

and general use of the above-mentioned passages are 
sufficiently aware of this fact, which renders it neces- 
sary for them to propose these arguments, not from 
scripture, but from reason. 

It is now but a few days since I enjoyed a very 
pleasant opportunity, in conversation with an Unitarian 
preacher. We found that on most of subjects, em- 
bracing doctrines, we were perfectly agreed ; and I 
thought he manifested as little relish for orthodoxy as 
myself But there was one question with which he 
seemed disposed to favor the doctrine of a future 
retribution, though he was, by no means inclined to 
contend that punishment will be endless. The sum 
oF his question was this; if a man of power and 
wealth oppress the honest and industrious, and swell 
his own coffers, by such oppressions : if he, being art- 
ful, in order to cover his iniquities, goes so far in them 
as to persecute and put the just to death, all the time 
so deceiving the public as to secure to himself the re- 
spect and even homage of society at large, and lives in 
this deceit and wickedness until old age, and dies sud- 
denly at last without repentance, Jiovv can it be made 
to appear that such a sinner is rewarded according to 
his works, unless he receive a punishment for his sins 
in a future state ? 

In reply to this question, which, besure, is not new, 
but has been uro^ed asfainst the universal doctrine as 
long as I can remember to have heard of Universalism, 
I was led to proceed as follows : — 

1. If it had pleased our heavenly Father to reveal 
in his written word anything which so applies to this 
question, as to make it evident that such a person, so 
living and so dying, must be punished in the world to 
come, there could be no need of this question, because 
15 



170 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

such scripture being adduced would decide the whole 
controversy. Here I paused, and intimated that if he 
believed that there was any such scripture, I expected 
he would bring it in place of his question. But he, ia 
room of intimating that any such scripture could be 
brought, desired me, in a very good-natured manner^ 
to proceed and answer the question as it stood. My 
reply then proceeded on the following scriptures as its 
foundation : Eccl. iv. 1, 2, — ' So I returned, and con- 
sidered all the oppressions that are done under the sun ; 
and, behold, the tears of such as were oppressed, and 
they had no comforter ; and on the side of their op- 
pressors there w^as power ; but they had no comforter. 
Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead 
more than the living which are yet alive.' — Prov. 
iii. 17, speaking of wisdom, Solomon says : ' Her 
ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are 
peace.' xiii. 15 : ^ The way of transgressors is hard.' 
Isa. Ivii. 21 : ' There is no peace, saith my God, ta 
the wicked.' 

The first of the above passages seemed to meet his 
question as directly as if it had been written for that 
express purpose; and, taken in connexion with the 
others, seemed to lay open the whole subject. All 
who are oppressed under the sun enjoy as much peace 
and pleasantness as are the natural consequences of 
all the righteousness which they practise in walking in 
the ways of wisdom, which leaves all their sufferings, 
which are caused by the injustice of their oppressors, 
no other character, in reference to themselves, than 
those physical evils possess, which are acknowledged 
to be inflicted by the hand of Divine Providence. As 
moral beings, then, our enjoyments, at all times, cor- 
respond with the degree of moral righteousness to 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 171 

which we attain. This being established, it must fol- 
low, of course, that the testimony which supports it 
has equal force to maintain, on the other hand, that 
the transgressor, at all times, as a moral being, suffers 
in a due pro])ortion to the degree of wickedness by 
which he is characterized. The man, therefore, who 
was made the subject of the Unitarian's question, did, 
in fact, endure a suffering, during his whole life-time, 
which corresponded with the wickedness which he 
had practised. As to what this man appeared to enjoy, 
there certainly could not be any more of moral enjoy- 
ment than there was of conscious integrity in the 
means which procured his enjoyment ; and surely no 
Christian ought to allow that sensuality is real happi- 
ness. 

If it were the sentiment of Solomon, that oppressors, 
after they die, are miserable in consequence of the op- 
pressions which they practise while they live, and that 
they enjoy much while they are practising their op- 
pressions, why should he say, as above quoted 1 — 
^ Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead, 
more than the living which are yet alive.' — Whether 
this sort of reasoning gave my Unitarian brother any 
satisfaction, or not, he did not directly inform me; 
though by his smiling and making no objections to my 
answer, I thought that he did not view it to be very 
exceptionable. 

It seems proper that we should endeavor to bring 
this subject, of a retribution in another state of exist- 
ence, for deeds done in this, into view, as it is present- 
ed to the common mind under the influence of com- 
mon prejudice. The necessity of examining this sub- 
ject in this relation will be acknowledged by the can- 
did, when the fact is realized, that it is this common 



172 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

prejudice, which is the main support by which this 
doctrine is upheld. 

It is now fresh in my recollection, how the doctrine 
of Universal Salvation affected the common mind, 
when it was first talked of in the vicinity where my 
youth was spent. The doctrine excited horror ming- 
led with disgust, and was denounced as the most dan- 
gerous heresy ever propagated. Dangerous, on ac- 
count of two certain consequences ; 1st. The entire 
prostration of all piety and morality in society, in this 
world ; and 2d. The certainty of everlasting condem- 
nation in the future. At that time, what is now rath- 
er seldom hinted, even in a low voice, viz. If I believ- 
ed so, I would lie, cheat, indulge in dissipation, wal- 
low in sin of every kind, not hesitating to take the 
lives of my neighbors, my famil}^, or even my own, — 
was then loudly vociferated from almost every lip, and 
I wns perfectly satisfied that such must be the natural 
tendency of the doctrine. Time and experience have 
now entirely disproved the first of the above-mention- 
ed consequences ; for many thousands have come into 
the belief of Universalism, since those days, and now 
constitute a religious denomination, professing and 
practising piety towards God, and good will to man- 
kind. But as to the 2d consequence above-mentioned, 
we must wait until we are introduced into the future 
world before we can certainly know. 

A question here arises : What were the habitual 
prejudices of common minds, which cnused the doc- 
trine of Universal Salvation, to be so much abhorred ? 
The candid reader, it is confidently believed, will see 
a sufficient similarity between this case and that repre- 
sented by our Saviour^ by the laborers in the vineyard, 
to allow that the former cannot be entitled to a better 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 173 

cliaracter than the latter. Those, in the parable, who 
murmured, complained because those who, wrought 
but one hour were made equal with themselves, who 
had borne the burden and the heat of the day. On 
-the same principle which they supposed their murmur- 
ings were just, they would have maintained that if 
they had known that they were to receive no more 
than those who wrought but one hour, they would not 
have gone into the vineyard in the morning. Now, if 
the objection against the doctrine of no retribution in 
the future world for deeds done in this, which objec- 
tion I am endeavoring to consider, be not of a charac- 
ter similar to the objection w^hich the murmuring la- 
borers stated against the good man, I have made a 
mistake. But I cannot believe that any one will un- 
dertake to show me where the mistake lies. 

The objection then, and the prejudices of the com- 
mon mind, which support the objection, seem to stand 
thus : If our neighbors who are not so godly as we are, 
and especially the extremely vile, are not to be pun- 
ished in the future world for their wicked deeds in 
this, then there must be partiality in our heavenly 
Father's government, though he has promised to re- 
ward ever man according to his works. The moment 
we see this objection in connexion with these common 
prejudices, we find the whole superstructure founded 
on an opinion which we have already refuted, show- 
ing that the morally righteous, in the present state, 
enjoy a moral recompense which perfectly agrees with 
their moral characters ; and that the morally vile en- 
dure, in the present state, a moral privation and infe- 
licity, which constitute an exact balance of their sins. 

I shall now consider the objection against the doc- 
trine of no retribution in the future world, for deeds 
15* 



174 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

done in this, as it relates to the alleged necessity of 
such retrihution in the future .>tate, in order to prepare 
the impenitent for a state of happiness. 

The objection, in this form, has one amiable quality 
which was not discovered in the oiher views, in which 
we have considered it. It now becomes disencumber- 
ed of the doctrine of retaliation, and ceases to oppose 
on the ground of partiality. lie who urges the objec- 
tion, in its present shape, feels no disposition to main- 
tain the doctrine of future retribution merely because 
he is not willing that the chiefest of sinners should be 
happy immediately, even to day, nor yet because such 
may not have suffered what punitive justice requires ;. 
but his objection, against no future punishment, now 
rests on the necessity of punishment, in the future 
world, as a corrective, designed to bring the impeni- 
tent to a holy submission to the divirie government, 
and to the law of love. 

In order to give the objection a due consideration^ 
in the shape in which we now, have it; it bt comes ne- 
cessary to inquire rej-pecting tlie nature and tendency 
of punishment to produce the reconciliation to the di- 
vine government, which our objection sets up as the 
effect to be produced by it. This inquiry will neces- 
sarily ask, what sort or kind of punishment will natur- 
ally tend to bring the sinner to love the law of holi- 
ness 1 The objector is called on to resolve this ques- 
tion in his mind ; for if he does himself love the law of 
holiness, and if he was brought thus to love, by being 
exercised with punishment, no doubt he can answer 
the question. The question seems a proper one for 
the consideration of all those, who profess to be gen- 
uine lovers of holiness. Were they brought into the 
ipirit of this love by enduring punishment, such as is 



Oii' FUTURE UETUII5UTION. 175 

contended will be inflicted on the wicked in the future 
world? This question is of such irnportance, that it 
may be urged in another form. Were the ancient 
patriarchs, the prophets of old, the apostles and prim- 
itive Christians brought into the f-piril of divine love, 
by enduring such punishment as is threatened to be 
inflicted on the wicked in the future world ? 

If this qiestioa be duly considered, in its various 
bearings, it will, undoubtedly, operate as a hammer oi^ 
the doctrine of future retribution, as we are now, con- 
sidering it, and if it do not entirely break it in pieces,, 
it must render it very thin ; for as the subject now lies 
before us, it must be granted at once, that there will 
be no need of any severer puiiishment, in the future 
world, to reconcile sinners to God, tlian those have en- 
dured in this world, who have been thus reconciled, un- 
less it can be maintained that tlie wicked, in the next 
state of existence, will be more obdurate than they are 
in this world, which may render a more intense pun- 
ishment necessary. 

It is very possible that a correct understanding of 
the subject of punishment, as to its utility, may be of 
service in this place. That our heavenly Father does 
punish us for our benefit, by yielding us to endure the 
necessary and inseparable consequences of our crimes^ 
and folly, is a fact, which we have not only allowed, 
but one we have already sufficiently proved from scrip- 
ture ; but that such punishment produces in us love to 
the moral principle of divine holiness, seems very 
doubtful. It is the loveliness of an object which in-- 
duces tlie mind to love it, not the hatefulness of its op- 
posite. Moreover, it must be allowed, that the proper, 
proximate cause of our love of the principle of divine 
holiness must continue, in order for our Jove to con- 



176 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

tinue. But who will contend that punishment must 
continue in order to keep us steadfast in the divine 
love? 

Let this subject be illustrated thus : The briars, the 
thorns, and the thistles which perplex and torture the 
traveller, who has wandered from the right path, tend 
to stop his progress, and even to compel him to pause 
and consider. While in this perplexity, he hears a 
voice behind him, ^ saying, this is the way, walk ye in 
it/ He turns and finds a high-way, a smooth and 
delightsome path, in which he travels with ease. — 
Now the facts stand thus : The difficulty which he 
found in one direction rendered him unwilling to pro- 
ceed further ; but it W€.s the good qualities of the path 
which he found, which reconciled him to it, and which 
continued to grant him satisfaction as well as to en- 
gage him to continue to travel in it. 

If we have now a correct understanding of the ne- 
cessity and utility of punishment or chastisement, it 
shows us, at once, that there can be no use for this 
punishment in the next state of existence, unless there 
be some wrong path in which the traveller will there 
wander. There must be, in that future state, the same 
appetites and passions, the same lusts to tempt and 
draw away, as those, which, in this mortal state, lead 
into sin ; or our heavenly Father must provide us with 
a different constitution, possessed of different passions 
and lusts, which may there serve to lead us into sins 
corresponding with such constitution and passions, or 
there seems to be no ground on which to maintain this 
necessity of punishment in a future state. If either 
philosophy or the scriptures teaCh us to believe that 
our next state of existence is to be a peccable state, I 
a«i in the dark respecting this subject, and need to be 
conducted into the light. 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 177 

I may now consider the Unitarian doctrine of fu- 
ture retribution, as they generally hold it forth. 

I have never been able to learn that Unitarian di- 
vines have framed any system of doctrine respecting 
this subject. They appear to maintain it by no argu- 
ment ; but merely state it as a fact, and as if it were 
not disputed. They generally, or frequently, at least, 
state the idea, wholly or in part, in the language of 
some passage or passages of scripture, which they 
very well know the common people understand to refer 
to such a subject, and entirely depend on popular pre-^ 
judice to justify themselves in the procedure. 

They congratulate themselves, however, on account 
of their not making the future state of the wicked 
quite as bad as our Calvinistic divines represent it; 
but if they find the Calvinists disposed to make use 
of this in any way unfavorable to their popularity, 
they will then go to work in earnest, and create a hell 
so intolerably frightful that it would even fright them- 
selves if they should beljeve one half of their owi^ 
story. 

If the reader should say that the above statement 
seems to wear an uncharitable aspect, he must be told, 
that the sole reason is, it is a true, unvarnished repre-« 
sentation of the case. If the question be asked, how 
I can justify them in their proceedings, I answer ; I 
have no right to judge them as to their motives, and 
therefore, as they are not accountable to me, I judge 
them not. ' To their own master they stand or fall.* 

The doctrine of a future retribution, as taught by 
our Unitarian divines, maintains that happiness and 
misery, in the future world will be enjoyed and suffer- 
ed accordingly as men shall have lived virtuously or 
Otherwise in this world. This is their simple state^ 



178 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

ment, and it is likewise th^ statement of Calvinistic 
divines ; but what they respectively mean by this state- 
ment is vastly different. The Calvinists mean that 
all who are regenerated by the irresistible grace of 
God are the virtuous, and that all the rest are wicked, 
let them do ever so well, in a moral point of view. 
But the Unitarians are so liberal as to allow every man 
a due reward for all his virtues, and are just to award 
a due punishment for every transgression. It must 
furthermore be understood,^ that the Calvinists have 
but one heaven for all the righteous, and one hell for 
all the wicked ; while Unitarians, whether they know 
it or not, according to what they preach, maintain that 
there will be no other distinctions in the conditions of 
men in the future state, than such an infinity of varia- 
tions as shall correspond with the infinite variety of 
moral character, formed in this mortal life. None, 
who have sinned, will ever be so happy as they would 
have been if they had never sinned ; and none will 
be so miserable as they would have been if they had 
been more sinful in this world. This doctrine cer« 
tainly allows that everlasting condemnation will be en- 
dured, and everlasting happiness enjoyed by the same 
individual. For instance ; David, king of Israel, 
' will be forever justified for the good deeds which he 
did, and in that justification will enjoy everlasting fe- 
licity ; on the other hand, as he was, in some of his 
acts, extremely wicked, so for them he will be forever 
condemned, and, in that condemnation, will endure 
everlasting sorrow. And, taking David for an example, 
so will it be with every individual of the human race, 
St. Paul, before his conversion to Christianity, was a 
most infuriate persecutor of Jesus and his disciples, 
for which he njust suffer everlasting condemnatioa ; 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 179 

but after his conversion he was a faithful disciple and 
minister of his divine Master, and for this he will enjoy 
everlasting justification. And, taking St. Paul for an 
example, so will it be with all mankind. 

I shall not undertake to state all the objections to 
this doctrine, which might be brought ; but a few may 
be mentioned. 

1st. This doctrine supposes that what is denomina- 
ted sin, is an evil, which must be attended with evil 
consequences eternally, which constitutes an infinite 
evil. This should not be allowed, as it must involve 
the original cause of this evil in moral blame. But it 
certainly does not require a very minute investigation 
to arrive at the fact that the original cause of whatever 
is must be good ; and when this is seen, it is perfectly 
consistent to allow, that the final result of all things 
must be the same as the original cause. 

2d. This doctrine is not worthy of our belief, as 
Christians, for this very good reason, the founder of 
Christianity never taught it. Our blessed Saviour 
never informed his disciples, that they should suffer, in 
the eternal world, everlasting' condemnation for the 
faults of this mortal life. 

3d. This doctrine is a denial of the New Testament 
doctrine of entire sanctification. St. Paul speaks of a 
sanctification which shall leave neither spot nor wrin- 
kle ; and the beloved disciple says, The blood of Christ 
deanseih from all sin. Surely, if David and Paul are 
to suffer everlastingly for their sins, and every other 
sinner is to suffer thus, it is very difficult to understand 
the doctrine of entire sanctification. But, 

4thly. There is hardly any view of this doctrine, 
which discovers its impropriety more evidently, than 



180 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE, ETC. 

to contemplate it as awarding everlasting happiness 
for our virtues in this world, but no reward for any 
good we may be employed about hereafter; and on 
the other hand, as awarding endless punishment for 
our sins in this world, but providing no punishment for 
wrongs which the wicked will practise in the future 
state. 



(181) 



TO A FRIEND, 

WHO HAD WRITTEN HIM ON THE SUBJECT OF ^ DEATH 
AND GLORY.' 

If our brethren, who maintain future punishment, 
would consent to do what they have been so often 
called on to do, viz. prove, from the testimony of scrip- 
ture, that the next state of existence will be so far 
like the ])resent, that man will there be liable to temp- 
tation, and to be led into sin, there would be an end 
to the controversy ; for it is allowed, on all hands, 
that where sin is, it is punishable ; and it ought to be 
allowed, by all, that where sin does not and cannot 
exist, it cannot be punished. There is another con- 
sideration, which these brethren seem entirely to dis- 
regard ; which is, if the Scriptures prove that the next 
state is a state of imperfection, sin and suffering, they 
must also prove an end to that state, or be incapable 
of proving universal holiness in any state. But it has 
never appeared to me that they felt so much disposed 
to enlighten us respecting the nature and evidences of 
the subject for which they contend, as they are to lean 
on the prejudices of the public in favor of a future 
hell, in its popular sense, and to turn the bitterness of 
that prejudice towards those, whose arguments they 
were conscious they could not answer. If there were 
any need of evidence to support what I here suggest, 
one circumstance of fact would be sufficient. When 
16 



182 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

I lived in Portsmouth, N. H., some fourteen or fifteen 
years ago, I was made exceedingly glad, by discover- 
ing, in my study on Heb. ix. 27, 28, what I now be- 
lieve to be the true application and use of the passage. 
As every new idea which was obtained by brethren, 
so long ago, was considered in the light of common 
property, we were in the habit of communicating to 
each other, as you very well know, all discoveries 
which we were able to make ; and one felt no small 
degree of pleasure in being able to repay such favors 
as he had received. In the spirit of this reciprocity, 
I immediately communicated my thoughts on this text 
to a brother near Boston ; he received it with full and 
cordial approbation, and communicated it to one in 
Boston and to another at a little distance, and all ac- 
cepted the exposition with approbation and delight. 
But what use do these brethren now make of this pas- 
sage ? Why, to prove the old notion of a day of judg- 
ment in the future state, and future retribution, all 
which is acceptable to the public prejudices, the per- 
turbed torrent of which we were formerly engaged in 
resisting ! 

But I must hasten to notice your queries. 1st. In 
relation to what you term * death and glory.' 

This subject has never been much agitated among 
brethren of our order, until quite lately. Dr. Priest- 
ley's views of an unconscious state after death, were 
not known to me when I wrote my treatise on atone- 
ment, nor had that subject then ever been considered 
by me. This accounts for my silence on it. Of late, 
I have endeavored to know what divine revelation has 
communicated on this subject ; but, owing to my v.^ant 
of discernment, I have not been able to reconcile all 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 183 

the passages, which seem to relate to the case, to a 
fair support of either side of the question. My efforts, 
I acknowledge, have not been made with that intense- 
ness of application, respecting this matter, as they 
would have been, had I been persuaded that the ques- 
tion was of any great consequence. Being fully sat- 
isfied that the Scriptures teach us to believe no moral 
state, between the death of the body, and the resur- 
rection state, in which that which was sown in dis* 
honor will be raised in glory, and that which was sown 
in corruption, shall be raised in incorruption, it seemed 
to me immaterial whether we enter, immediately, after 
the dissolution of the body, on the resurrection state, 
or sleep in unconscious quietude any given time before 
that glorious event shall take place. In either case, it 
is what you call * death and glory ;' for it makes no 
difference as to the length of time during an uncon- 
scious state. In such a state there can be effected no 
moral preparations. 

As you have framed the remainder of your queries 
In such a manner as to give your own views of the 
subjects, and as there is no essential difference be- 
tween our conceptions of them, it seems unnecessary 
for me to be farther particular ; except it may be well 
just to remark on your fourth suggestion, which re- 
gards the * natural immortality of the souL' What- 
ever I may have written on this subject, it was never 
my intention to attempt to define the nature, as to the 
substance of the soul. I have believed, and still con- 
tinue to view man as the ' offspring of God,' and that 
this relation constitutes him an heir of that immortality 
which is a property of God alone. But surely what 



184 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE, ETC. 

Pope says of Newton will apply with increased em- 
phasis to one so limited as your friend : 

* Could he, whose rules the rapid comet binds, 
Describe or fix one movement of his mind ? 
Who saw its fires here rise, and there descend, 
Explain his own beginning, or his end ?' 

Yours affectionately, 

HosEA Ballou. 



(185) 



THESECONDDEATH. 

The Death, of which an illustration is to be attempt- 
ed, being called the * Second Death/ renders it ne- 
cessary that we inquire, to what death is it second 1 

Therefore labors on this general subject may be 
properly directed to ascertain, 

1st. That death to which the second death may be 
properly considered second. And, 

2d. The second death, and its similarity to the 
first. 

The general opinion represents those deaths as dif- 
ferent in their nature and circumstances as is possible 
to conceive. The first death is supposed to be the 
death of the body, and the second a state of never- 
ending misery. K 

The death of the body' consists in a total extinction 
of life with all its appendages. In this situation there 
is no sense of desire, no sense of pain, or pleasure ; no 
hopes, of course no disappointment ; no love, nor fear ; 
in short no happiness, nor misery. Second to this, it is 
believed that a state of positive sufferings in the eter- 
nal world is properly placed, but we think erroneously. 
One moment of rational reflection would suggest the 
greater propriety of calling the above-mentioned state 
of punishment, the second life ; because in such a 
supposed state there are many appendages which bear 
a likeness to the life of man in this world, while there 
is not one which bears the least resemblance of the 
death of the body. The death which it seems proper 
16* 



186 EXAMINATION OP THE DOCTRINE 

to State as the first death is the apostacy of the Jew- 
ish church, which apostacy we shall find to be called 
or represented as a death. See John viii. 21 : * Then 
said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye 
shall seek me and shall die in your sins : whither I 
go ye cannot come/ 24 : ' I said, therefore, unto you 
that ye shall die in your sins ; for if ye believe not 
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins/ The com- 
mon opinion that Christ spoke in the above quotations, 
of the death of the body^ is corrected by the 51st 
verse of the same chapter. 'Verily, verily, I say un- 
to you, if a man keep my sayings, he shall never see 
death.' Jesus could not mean here that a man could 
avoid seeing the death of the body by keeping his 
sayings, but that a man might avoid seeing that 
death which those would die, who did not believe in 
him. 

Keep in mind that this death in sin is a consequence 
which the Saviour connects with unbelief, in the fol- 
lowing : ' For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall 
die in your sins.' A few scriptures relating to the un- 
belief of the Jews, and the state of death and condem- 
nation into which their unbelief brought them, will 
here be considered. John xii. 37 — 41 ; * But though 
he had done so many miracles before them, yet they 
believed not in him ; that the saying of Esaias the 
prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, — Lord, 
who hath believed our report ? And to whom hath 
the arm of the Lord been revealed ? Therefore they 
could not believe, because that Esaias said again. He 
hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart ; 
that they should not see with their eyes, nor under- 
stand with their heart, and be converted, and I 
should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 187 

saw his glory and spoke of him.' Matt. xiii. 13, 14, 
15 : ' Therefore speak I to them in parables ; because 
they seeing, see not ; and hearing, they hear not : 
neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled 
the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing, ye 
shall hear, and shall not understand ; and seeing, ye 
shall see, and shall not perceive ; for this people's 
heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hear- 
ing, and their eyes they have closed ; lest at any time 
they should see with their eyes, and hear with their 
ears, and should understand with their heart, and 
should be converted, and I should heal them.' 

Rom. xi, 7 — 10 : ' What then ? Israel hath not ob- 
tained that which he seeketh for ; but the election hath 
obtained it, and the rest were blinded (according as it 
is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, 
eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should 
not hear) unto this day. And David saith, Let their 
table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumhling- 
block, and a recompense unto them : let their eyes be 
darkened that they may not see, and bow down their 
back alway.' Dan. xii. 2 : ' And many of them that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to ev- 
erlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt.' 

This passage in Daniel very fitly corresponds with 
the words of Paul before quoted. ' The election hath 
obtained it and the rest were blinded :' the dust of the 
earth, in which the Jewish Church was asleep, was the 
carnal ordinances of the law, and the added traditions 
by which they made the law void. John v. 28, 29 : 
* Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming, in the 
which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, 
^nd shall come forth ; they that have done good, unta 



188 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, 
unto the resurrection of damnation.' Matt. xxv. 46 : 
* And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; 
but the righteous into life eternal.' Those scriptures 
which I have quoted in this case are generally under- 
stood to refer to the same state of endless punishment 
which is supposed to be denominated the Second Death, 
in Revelation. 

But it is worthy of notice that the state of condem- 
nation, into which unbelief brought the Jews, is never 
called, in scripture, the second death, though it is 
represented as a death. The plain reason is, it being 
a death of unbelief and apostacy under the first dispen- 
sation, or covenant, it is the first, and not the second 
death. 

That the state of condemnation into which the Jew- 
ish Church fell, is not a state of endless punishment, is 
evident from many scriptures, particularly Rom. xi. 
where the apostle continues his discourse from the above 
quotation : * I say then, have they stumbled that they 
should fall ? God forbid ; but rather through their 
fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke' 
them to jealousy.' Verse 15 : ' For if the casting 
away of them be the reconciling of the world, what 
shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead.' 
And more to this effect may be seen in the same chap- 
ter. 

2. The death which the scriptures represent as 
second to the death which has been here illustrated, 
is the apostacy of the Christian Church, and the state 
of condemnation connected with it. To this subject 
our minds may be directed by the following scrip- 
tures. 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 189 

Heb. X. 26—29 : ' For if we sin wilfully after that 
we have received the knowledge of the truth, there 
remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fear- 
ful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, 
which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised 
Moses' law died without mercy under two or three wit- 
nesses : of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, 
he shall be thought worthy, who hath trodden under 
foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the 
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, 
and hath done despite to the spirit of grace ? ' Rom. 
xi. 20, 21, 22 : * Well because of unbelief they were 
broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high 
minded, but fear : for if God spared not the natural 
branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Be- 
hold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God : on 
them which fell, severity ; but towards thee, goodness, 
if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also 
shalt be cut off.' The evident meaning of the apostle 
here, is, on the Jews who fell, God's severity fell ; 
and if you. Gentile believers, do not cbntinue by faith 
in God's goodness, you also will receive the severity of 
God, in being cut off, as the unbelieving Jews were 
broken off through unbelief. ^ Thess. iii. 3 : * Let no 
man deceive you by any means : for that day shall not 
come, except there come a falling away first, and that 
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.' St. 
Paul spoke of the fall of the Jews in the quotation 
above, and here he speaks of the falling away of the 
Christian Church, and of the setting up of the man of 
sin. The blessed Jesus' who sowed the word of the 
kingdom, in the hearts of the believers, knowing that 
this falling away, in the then future age of the church, 
would take place according to the signs given under 



190 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

the law by the travel of the Jewish Church, represent- 
ed it in his usual method, by a parable. See Matt. xiii. 
24, 25, &c. : ' Another parable put he forth unto them, 
saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man 
which sowed good seed in his field : but while men 
slept his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, 
and went his way, ^c. 1 Tim. iv. 1 : * Now the spirit 
speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall 
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits 
and doctrines of devils.' 

The first passage where the words second death Oc-- 
cur, stands in such a connexion as to render its mean- 
ing easy to be understood. And it will appear, on a 
careful examination, not only to favor the idea which 
has been suggested, but to contain argument within 
itself, to satisfy Christian professors, in general, that 
the second death does not mean a state of endless pun- 
ishment. See Rev. ii. 8 — 11 : ' And unto the angel 
of the church in Smyrna write ; these things saith the 
first and the last, which was dead and is alive ; I know 
thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thoii art 
rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say 
they are Jew^s, and are not, but are the synagogue of 
Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt 
suffer : behold, the devil shall cast some of you into 
prison, that ye may be tried ; and ye shall have tribula- 
tion ten days ; be thou faithful unto death, and I will 
give thee a crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him 
hear what the spirit saith unto the churches ; he that 
overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.' — 
Note 1st. This address is to a church of believers, 
who are exhorted not to fear those things which they had 
to suffer, to try them. 2d. Those who overcome all 
the trials which were put upon them, were not to be 



OP FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 191 

hurt of the second death. 3d. The fair conclusion 
is, that those who fell from their steadfastness in the 
faith and patience of Christ, would be hurt of the" sec- 
ond death. 4th. It is the opinion of Christian pro- 
fessors in general, that those who are brought to believe 
in Christ may fall away, yet not finally. It is then 
evident, that those who were believers in him who is 
the first and the last, who was dead and is alive, were 
liable, by being overcome of the devil, to be hurt of the 
second death. 

The epistle to the church in Sardis is remarkably 
clear on the subject in discussion, Rev. iii. 1 — 6 : * And 
unto the angel of the church in Sardis write ; these 
things saith he that hath the seven spirits of God, and 
the seven stars ; I know thy works, that thou hast a 
name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, 
and strengthen the things that remain, that are ready 
to die : for I have not found thy works perfect before 
God. Remember, therefore, how thou hast received 
and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If, therefore, 
thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, 
and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon 
thee. Thou hast a few names, even in Sardis, which 
have not defiled their garments ; and they shall walk 
with me in white ; for they are worthy. He that over- 
cometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment ; 
and I will not blot out his name out of the book of 
life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and 
before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear 
what the spirit saith unto the churches.' Note 1st. 
The church in Sardis is accused of being dead. That 
this death is the second death, is evident from the 
text quoted from the apostle to the church of Smyrna. 
' He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second 



192 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

death.' This shows, as has been noticed, that those 
who do not overcome, but are overcome, must be hurt 
of the second death. The church in Sardis had fallen 
into death, and are exhorted to repent ; they had not 
overcome, but w^ere overcome ; therefore, according to 
the texts, when compared^ the church of Sardis had 
fallen into the second death. 2d. It is acknowledg- 
ed that there were a few names in Sardis, who had not 
defiled their garments. This was a testimony against 
the greatest part that they had defiled their garments. 
Those who had not defiled their garments were to 
walk with him who hath the seven spirits of God and 
the seven stars, in white, being worthy. This is a tes- 
timony, that those who had defiled their garments, 
should not walk wath Christ, because they were not 
worthy. 3d. To those who overcome, it was promised, 
that they should be clothed in white, and that their 
names should not be blotted out of the book of life, 
but that their names should be confessed before God 
and his angels. This is a plain testimony, that those 
who had not overcome, but were dead, should not be 
clothed in white nor walk with Christ, but that their 
names should be blotted out of the book of life and 
disowned before God and his angels. 4th. In that the 
text proves that the major part of the church in Sar- 
dis, had defiled their garments, it as fully proves that 
they once had garments which were not defiled. And 
wherein the text shows that those who did not over- 
come, should have their names blotted out of the book 
of life, it as fully shows that their names had been 
written in the book of life, for they could not be blot- 
ted out if they had not been there. 

It may be as well at this time to see where our re- 
searches will end, as any time. See Rev. xx. 14, 15, 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 193 

' And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire* 
This is the second death, and whosoever was not found 
written in the book of life was cast into the lake of 
fire/ It is now perfectly plain, that those whose 
names had been in the book of life, were blotted out, 
and their names being blotted out, they were cast into 
the lake of fire, which is called the second death. In 
the 21st chapter and 8th verse^ the above lake of fire 
is called ^ the lake which burneth with fire and brim- 
stone ; which is the second death.' 

This fire and brimstone is spoken of in the 14th 
chapter as follows. See verses 9, 10, 11, ' And the 
third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice. If 
any man worship the beast and his image and receive 
his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall 
drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is pour* 
ed out without mixture into the cup of his indignation ; 
and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in 
the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence 
of the lamb ; and the smoke of their torment ascend- 
eth up forever and ever : and they have no rest day nor 
night, who worship the beast and his image, and who- 
soever receiveth the mark of his name.' Note 1st. 
This fire and brimstone is called the second death, 
in the quotation from chapter xxi. 8. 2d. This fire 
and brimstone is called the wine of the wrath of God 
in this last quotation. 3d. Those who are set forth to. 
be the sufferers of this Second Death we learn from 
the following passages in connexion with this above 
quoted. See chap. xxi. 8 ; * But the fearful, and un- 
believing, and the abominable, ^and murderers, and 
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all 
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth 
with fire and brimstone, which is the second death/ 
17 



194 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

In the quotation from the 14th chapter, those charac- 
ters are distinguished as receiving the mark of the 
beast, by worshipping the beast, &c. See chap. xiii. 
16, 17 ; ' And he caused all, both small and great, rich 
and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their 
right hand, or in their forehead : and that no man might 
buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of 
the beast, or the number of his name/ 4th. Accord- 
ing to the quotation from the 14th chapter, the wor- 
shippers of the beast are tormented with this fire and 
brimstone at the same time that they are worshipping 
the beast. See the text : * And they have no rest day 
nor night who worship the beast or his image.' This 
suffering is not only confined to the time when the 
beast is worshipped, but also to day and night, which 
shows it to be in this world of error and condemnation, 
5th. It is observed, note 2d, that this fire and brimstone 
is called the wine of the wrath of God. This wrath 
and the dispensation of it is noticed in the following 
scriptures. Chapter xv. 1 : ' And I saw another sign 
in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels Jiaving 
the seven last plagues ; for in them is filled up the 
wrath of God.' Verse 7 : ^ And one of the four beasts 
gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of 
the wrath of God, who liveth forever and ever.* Chap. 
xvi. 1, 2 : * And I heard a great voice out of the tem- 
ple, saying to the seven angels. Go your ways, and pour 
out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. And 
the first w^ent and poured out his vial upon the earth ; 
and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the 
men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them 
which worshipped his image.' This wrath of God, 
this fire and brimstone, this lake of fire, and this se- 
cond death are evidently all the same thing ; and no* 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 195 

thing can be plainer than that this suffering is on the 
earth, during the changes of day and night, while the 
beast is worshipped. If we carefully examine the 
whole dispensation of this wrath of God, represented 
Ly the pouring out of the seven vials, it will still con- 
firm this opinion. — See verse 3 : * And the second 
angel poured out his vial upon the sea ; and it became 
as the blood of a dead man : and every living soul 
died in the sea.' — See further : 'The third angel 
poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of 
waters ; and they became blood. The fourth angel 
poured out his vial upon the sun, &c. The fifth an- 
gel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast. The 
sixth angel poured out his vial on the great river Eu- 
phrates. And the seventh angel poured out his vial in 
to the air.' What is there in all this, which has the 
least to do with an eternal state of mankind in a future 
world 1 Will this beast be worshipped in the eternal 
world ? See chapter xiii. 5 : ' And there was given 
unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphe- 
mies ; and power was given unto him to continue forty 
and two months.' This cannot mean an endless du- 
ration. 

The similarity between this second death and the 
death which has been illustrated as the first, is very 
evident. The lively oracles of God w^ere given to the 
Jewish church as they also were to the Christian 
church. The Jewish church corrupted and made void 
the law by their traditions, and the Christian church 
has corrupted and made void the gospel by their tra- 
ditions. The Jews denied the holy one and the just^ 
and desired a murderer, — and the Christian church 
have denied the holy Jesus, the just God and the Sa- 
viour, and have desired the murderous antichrist. — 



196 EXAMINATION OP THE DOCTRINE, ETC. 

The Jews fell under great condemnation, and the 
judgments of God were poured out upon them in an 
awful manner, — and the Christian church, by reason 
of similar sins, have met and are meeting with similar, 
awful and dreadful calamities. They have shed the 
blood of saints and of martyrs, and God hath given them 
blood to drink, for they are worthy. 

All these things are noted at large in the scriptures, 
and they are written for our admonition. But, as has 
been noticed, the scriptures do not exclude the aposta- 
tized Jewish church from the final benefits of the gos- 
pel, but on the contrary show that the receiving of 
them shall be life from the dead. So also in the 
merciful councils of divine grace, as taught in the 
scriptures, we find that the beast, who is antichrist, 
and the worship of the beast together with the wrath 
of God, will not eternally last, but Vi^ill close in due 
time, and that dispensation of Universal Holiness and 
Happiness will commence, which is noted in Rev. xxi. 
3, and onward, in which it is declared that the taber- 
nacle of God is with meff, and that he will dwell with 
them ; and wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and 
that there shall be no more death. Here then there 
must be an end to the Second Death. It is further 
said that there shall be no more sorrow nor pain. And 
the reason given, is, that the former things, (relating 
to the lake of fire) are passed away, and that He who 
sits upon the throne should make all things new. 



(197) 



A CALL 

ON THE ATTENTION OF THOSE WHO CONTEND THAT 
THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE OF PUNISH- 
MENT IS ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIANITIT. 

In this call, I humbly desire to use perfect fairness, 
and to be clearly understood, in relation to the object 
which I have in view. I well know that many who 
profess to believe in the final salvation of all men, do 
at the same time most seriously believe that there will 
be a state of moral discipline, in the future world, and 
that punishment is not exclusively confined to this 
mortal state ; while others, who maintain the doctrine 
of future retribution, believe that the punishment to 
be inflicted and endured in that state will be endless ; 
and that this doctrine of endless punishment is one of 
the main items in the doctrine of the gospel, and that 
to deny it is infidelity. But whether those who be- 
lieve in limited punishment hereafter, generally believe 
that this article of their faith is essential to Chris- 
tianity, or not, I am not informed. This call is made 
to those, and those only, who believe that the doctrine 
of future punishment is necessarily connected with 
Christianity, so that a person cannot be a faithful fol- 
lower of Christ, in principle and in practice, unless 
he believes it. 

That we may do tolerable justice to this subject, it 
may be well to notice certain particulars, in which all 
Christian denominations are agreed, and which all al- 
17* 



198 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

low to belong to the system of the gospel of Christ, 
and institute the inquiry whether a future state of pun- 
ishment is as plainly taught and enforced in the Scrip- 
tures as are those particulars. 

1. The existence of one Supreme Creator and Ru- 
ler of the Universe is believed by all denominations of 
Christians. This doctrine of one God is taught by 
Moses, by all the prophets, by Jesus ai^d all his apos- 
tles. But is the doctrine of a future state of punish- 
ment as clearly taught by Moses, by all the prophets, 
by Jesus and all his apostles ? It is very certain that 
this is not the case ; and one simple matter of well- 
known fact is sufficient to prove that it is not. There 
are many, who were educated in the belief, that the 
doctrine of a future state of punishment is taught in 
the Scriptures, who have been led to search the Scrip- 
tures with much care and patience, to ascertain 
whether this doctrine is, in fact, a scripture doctrine, 
who have, after all their researches, been obliged, con- 
trary to their educations and early prejudices, to come 
to the conclusion that no such doctrine is supported 
by the Bible ; but never was there an individual who, 
by studying the Scriptures, came to the conclusion 
that they do not maintain the existence of Jehovah. 

2. All professed Christians agree, that the Scrip- 
tures abundantly maintain the belief of a divine inspi- 
ration according to the following passage : Heb. i. 1, 
2, ^ God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, 
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son ; ' 
and there is no contention respecting this matter of 
acknowledged fact. But we ask the believers in a fu- 
ture state of punishment whether the Scriptures are 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 199 

as clear in support of this tenet as they are in vindi- 
cating the doctrine of divine inspiration ? It is not 
expected that any one will contend for the affirmative 
of this question. 

3. There is no dispute among professed Christians 
respecting the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. All 
denominations seem equally to embrace this as the 
foundation of the Christian faith, hope and religion. 
But will any one contend that the doctrine of a future 
state of punishment is as forcibly and as clearly main- 
tained in the Scriptures, as is the doctrine of the res- 
urrection of Jesus ? On this subject St. Paul speaks 
as follows : ^ If Christ be not risen, then is our preach- 
ing vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we 
are found false witnesses of God ; because we have 
testified of God that he raised up Christ ; whom he 
raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.' But 
do we meet with any language designed to teach the 
doctrine of a future retribution, that corresponds with 
these words of the apostle ? Has this, or any other 
inspired author, ever said, — If the wicked are not 
punished in a future state then is our preaching vain, 
and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found 
false witnesses of God ; because we have testified that 
God will punish the wicked in another world, whom 
he will not punish 1 It is very true that many, very 
many preachers of our times might, with much pro- 
priety, use this kind of language respecting their own 
preaching ; but then they are not inspired ; and are 
therefore not entitled to the confidence which we 
place in the testimony of the apostle. 

4. All denominations of Christians agree that the 
religion of Christ requires men to love one another. 



200 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE 

and even to love their enemies, that they may be the 
children of our Father who is in heaven ; and St. 
Paul argues that though he had all other gifts and had 
not charity, he was but as ' sounding brass and a tink- 
ling cymbal/ Let us here ask whether the doctrine 
of future punishment is as forcibly and as evidently 
vindicated in the Scriptures, as is this doctrine con- 
cerning love and charity 1 Is there any passage of 
scripture, which, on a fair construction, amounts to as 
much as to say, — though I speak with the tongues of 
men and of angels, and proclaim not the doctrine of 
a future state of punishment, I am as sounding brass, 
or a tinkling cymbal ? And though I have the gift of 
prophecy, and understood all mysteries, and believe 
not in future punishment, I am nothing. And though 
I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and believe 
not in future punishment, I am nothing. The belief 
in future punishment never faileth. And now abideth 
charity, hope, and a belief in future punishment ; but 
the greatest of these is this faith in future retribution ? 
If this item, so much contended for, be in fact indis- 
pensable in the religion of Christ, why should it not 
be found expressed in the foregoing strong and im- 
pressive language ? Why did not St. Paul state this 
doctrine so plainly that its present advocates might 
find scripture language sufficient for its defenc-e 1 
And after having thus stated it, proceed to give it as 
high an encomium as he bestowed on charity ? Why 
did he not say, the doctrine and belief of a future 
state of sin and punishment for some of our fellow- 
creatures, suffereth long, and is kind ; it envieth not ; 
it vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave 
itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not easily pro- 



OF FUTURE RETRIBUTION. 201 

vokedj tliinketh no evil ; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but 
rejoiceth in the truth"; beareth all things, believeth all 
things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, and never 
faileth ? Among most of Christian denominations, 
in our day, this belief is as the new name in the white 
stone ; with it, any thing will do ; without it, nothing. 

5. All Christians are united in the belief that life 
and immortality are brought to light through the gos- 
pel ; and no one, who pretends to believe the Chris- 
tian religion, refuses his assent to this glorious and 
heart-cheering doctrine. But will any one pretend 
that a future state of punishment is brought to light 
through the gospel ? Can we with safety contend 
that it is as necessary to believe in this tenet as in life 
and immortality, in order that we may enjoy peace 
and rest in believing ? 

To conclude : If we firmly believe in God, and be- 
lieve that he is our Father and unchangeable friend ; 
if we believe that he hath revealed the counsels of 
his divine wisdom and favor through his holy child 
Jesus, and his determination to reconcile all things to 
himself through his mediation ; if we cordially em- 
brace the precepts of the Saviour, and love God with 
all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves, and exer- 
cise love and good will even to our enemies ; if we 
believe that * as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive,' in glory and immortality, — 
must we be denied Christian fellowship because we 
cannot find the doctrine of a future state of sin and 
punishment laid down in the written word, nor feel 
the evidences of this doctrine to grow out of the spi- 
rit of Christ within us, or to be dictated by any of the 
virtues or duties commanded by our divine Master ? 



202 EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE, ETC. 



%- 



A hope is entertained that those, to whom this call 
is addressed, will give it a serious attention, and allow 
the queries here suggested the weight and considera- 
tion which their importance demand. It must be 
granted, on all hands, that the interest of Christianity 
cannot be promoted by attaching a consequence to un- 
essential opinions, to the entire dissolution of fellow- 
ship and brotherly love. H. B. 



CONCLUSION. 

The writer of the foregoing sheets is by no means 
insensible, that by removing the doctrine of a future 
state of retribution from the Christian religion, a very 
material change is effected ; and he would assure his 
readers, that he has not attempted it without endeav- 
oring, by the most careful examination of which he 
was capable, to satisfy himself, that by so doing he 
would render a favorable service to mankind^ and con- 
tribute something towards freeing the Scriptures from 
a character which not only does not belong to them, 
but which has rendered them a source of human mis- 
ery. So far from having any desire to disarm the 
divine testimony of any terrors which were designed 
for the salutary purpose of preventing the commission 
of sin, or wrong-doing, it has been his most fervent 
desire to present the divine retributions in the way 
which both scripture and experience direct. 

The religion of Jesus Christ was doubtless designed 
for the improvement of mankind, by enlightening the 
human understanding, by purifying the heart and af- 



CONCLUSION. 203« 

fections, by inducing a universal benevolence and 
charity, by leading men in the path of righteousness 
and peace, and by giving strength to that blessed hope 
of a happy existence hereafter, the desire of which 
it seems that our adorable Creator saw fit to implant 
in our nature. Could we be persuaded that the gloomy 
terrors, the heart-.withering horrors of a state of tor- 
ment hereafter, could ia the least promote those be- 
nevolent designs of the religion of Jesus, we should 
feel a reluctancy in attempting to remove them ; but 
we are convinced, beyond the smallest scruple, that 
in room of this, they have exerted an entirely contrary 
influence. 

Should the arguments contained in this work induce 
the reader to search the Scriptures, for the purpose of 
obtaining a knowledge of God and his word, and con-^ 
tribute to render the gospel more valuable in his esti- 
mation, the religion of the Saviour more precious to 
his heart, the practice of moral virtue more lovely in 
his sight, and sin and transgression more detestable, — 
the object the writer has had in view will be attained, 
and that for which he most ardently prays will be 
granted. 



INDEX. 



j9nalogy, the argument from exam- 
ined, 36—44. 

Anastasis\ meaning of, 163, 164. 

Ballou, a remark concerning those who 
listened to him in Philadelphia, 138. 

Channing (VV, E.) Dr., his sentiments 
concerning retribution examined, 
30—34. 

Dead, are free from sin, 123, 128, 129, 
131—135. 

Death and Glory, 181. 

Death, Second, 185. 

Early Prejudices against Universal- 
ism, 172. 

Everlasting Misery, supposed good 
effect of teaching, 172. 

Fear, utility and proper objects of, 
26, 116, 117. 

Future Punishment, thoughts on doc- 
trine of, 144—146. 

Future Retribution considered, 168. 

Gehenna, true sense of, 80, 81, 113, 114, 

Hades defined, 96. 

Illustration of passages, (See under 
Scriptures.) 

Important Subject considered, 152—157, 

Intermediate State, not recognized in 
Scriptures, 183, 

Jesus mourned at human suffering, 150; 
how he is the Saviour of men, 
152—157. 

Judging ourselves, duty inculcated, 

Kindness of Christ, 150. 

Last times, phrase explained, 89. 

Love to God, cause of, 23. 

Motives of Action, 16. 

J^ature of Salvation, 152 — 157. 

Object of this work stated, 15. 

Passages of Scripture illustrated, (See 
under Scriptures.) 

Plagues of Egypt, 56. 

Prison, Spirits in, 141. 

Punishment Future, (See under Ret- 
ribution.) 

Query, important, 73. 

concerning Christ's teachings, 80. 

Reminiscence pleasing, concerning Heb. 
ix. 27, 28, 182. 

Resurrection of the Just, 163 — 167. 

Retribution, two theories of, consid- 
ered, 14, 15. 
Future, in some cases pernicious, 24 ; 
considered in relation to Morals, 
1—36 ; considered in relation to An- 



alogy, 2&-AA', considered in relation 
to the Scriptures, 44-114 ; doctrine 
of not known in early ages of the 
world, 58, 70, 71. 
Rich Man and Lazarus, parable of ex- 
plained, 93. 
Salvation, nature of, 152 — 157. 
Scriptures, passages adduced by the 
author as proof of retribution in this 
life : Gen. iii. 14—19, (48) ; iv. 10— 
12, (49) ; vi. 5—7, (51) ; vii. 21—23, 
(52) ; xix. 17, 24, 25, (54) ; xv. 13, 
14, (55). Exod. ix. 15, 16, (57) ; xxi. 
23—25, (60). Lev. xxvi. 14—39, (61 
—63). Jud. IX. 20, 23, 24, 56, 57, (65;. 

1 Kings xxi. (67) ; xxii. 37, 38, (68). 

2 Kings ix. 36, 37, (69). Ezek. xxi. 
28, (72); xxii. 17, (23). Lam. iv. 
1—12, (75). Matt. xvi. 24—28, (77) ; 
xxiii. 32—39, (78) ; xxiv. 29-34, (79). 
Mark viii. 38, ix. 1, (78). Luke ix. 
26, 27, (78) ; xxi. 20—32, (79.) 

Scriptures, passages supposed to prove 
future punishment examined: Matt. 
v.22,(80); X. 28, (104). Luke xii, 
4,5, (102); xvi. 19—31, (93;. John 
V. 28, 29, (136) ; viii. 21, (186.) 

Scriptures, passages in general, illuS'- 
trated, Luke xiv. 14, (163). Rom. ii. 
16, (136) ; 20—22, (189) ; vi. 7, (123, 
128, 129, 131—135). 1 Cor. xv. 22. 
(154). 2 Thess. iii. 3, (189). Heb, 
X. 26—29, (189). 1 Peter iii. 17—20, 
(141—143). Rev. ii. 8—11, (190); 
iii. 1—6,(191); xx. 14, 15, (192). 

Second Death illustrated, 185. 

Sin, its consequences, 19. 

the proper object of fear, 26. 

Spirits in Prison, 141 — 143. 

StuarVs (Prof.) sentiments compared 
with themselves, 21, 22, 34. 

Tares f parable of 190. 

Thoughts on doctrine of Future Pun- 
ishment, 144 — 146. 

Titles of Christ, 153. 

Tophet described, 87. 

Universalism, early prejudices against 
172 ; not licentious, 159. 

Vice suffers a just punishment on 
earth, 173. 

Whitman, Rev. Bernard, reference to, 
83. 

Zeal, on a certain point, unaccount- 
able, 41. 



tc 



1%V^^^ 



^^-'Vi^^^.r/. 



^\i^ 










0^ V 










<- 






.^ .^ 





3 A. 



<# -^ 



'^ ' 










^ 











O.-o..-* -V^. ..0 



^^-..^^ 









v^^ °'- 




L^^ 



,^^<3. 



V Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. ' ' 



"^ <^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide a 

^^xP<& - Treatment Date: August 2005 y/ 






# %s ' PreservationTechnologies B 

- '^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION ^ 

<^ 111 Thomson Park Dnve 

Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 
\ (724)779-2111 -C 



: ^^^ °- =« 



,^ 9^ o 



i* oN 



,«^ °^ 






,.' ^ 1 * « , _ -^ 




^ . 







■7?:t^^# .- ^^,:^-^ ^ 













lN^ 





















^ CI 






^\r^^ ^ %.^^..\^^^^ ^ %,^^,,-,,:f> 













7^ 




.K 



.^^<3- 







* (0 






,^^^^ 



^.# , . 9z,'^o\\-^ .^'- _„ -Q, V 




.^ 












v^ 





^^^ 



<6 o^ 



.^^ 










0. "^ ' 



<# 
















c^'^ 







0^^ % 



-^ % 




%. 



^o %„.# 













lV 



s^ 



-^^ 






L^^ 



^ °^ 










■^ .^'^ 



^o^ 




V *•', -0/. -^ 






.^^ 9^ 



A ^ 










LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




007 032 370 9 



